Successfully navigating the early years of a faculty position
Successfully navigating the early years of a faculty position
Michelle L. Kovarik 0 1 2
Christopher R. Harrison 0 1 2
Thomas J. Wenzel 0 1 2
0 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Bates College , Lewiston, ME 04240 , USA
1 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, San Diego State University , San Diego, CA 92812 , USA
2 Michelle L. Kovarik
The early years of a faculty position can be an invigorating but
challenging experience, given the typical expectations for
teaching and completion of scholarly work. Teaching and
research are time-intensive activities. Service responsibilities to
the institution, department, and perhaps the profession add to a
faculty member’s responsibilities. Finally, everyone needs
time for a personal life. Success in the early years of a faculty
position often involves finding the right approach to allocating
time and balancing the demands on one’s time. The writers of
this article bring the perspective of an individual who will
soon be standing for tenure at an undergraduate institution,
an individual who recently got tenure at a doctoral-granting
department, and an individual who has spent a 36-year career
at an undergraduate institution and is nearing retirement. The
three of us are employed at institutions in the United States,
although we suspect that much of the advice included herein is
also applicable to new faculty members outside the US.
Table 1 provides a number of questions, the answers to which
will help a new faculty member navigate the early years of
their position. Assuming the faculty member has secured a
tenure-track position, one virtue of these early years is that
your overall professional goal is obvious – get tenure.
Department of Chemistry, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106, USA
The first step to getting tenure, and ultimately in balancing the
demands in the early years, is in having a clear understanding
of what is expected within your situation to achieve tenure or
some other form of a permanent appointment. There are some
primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) in the US that
place a strong emphasis on teaching and have minimal to no
expectations for scholarship. PhD-granting institutions will
place a strong emphasis on scholarly accomplishments. At
most institutions, a new faculty hire will not be given a check
list of what must be accomplished to secure tenure. The lack
of a check list has negative and positive aspects. If a check list
exists, a positive aspect is that by checking all the boxes, a
favorable tenure decision is assured. However, if the check list
is long and arduous to fulfill, the stress of questioning whether
one will be able to check all the boxes in the allotted period of
time may become overwhelming. While the absence of a
check list may make it seem that the criteria for getting tenure
are nebulous, a virtue is that there is no one mandated set of
criteria and that different people may secure tenure through
different types and mixtures of accomplishments. In cases
where expectations are less well-defined, it is helpful to have
one-on-one conversations with your colleagues to learn more
about their individual interpretations of expectations.
Understand who makes the decision
It is important to determine where the decision-making entity
resides and satisfy the expectations of that entity. Are tenure
decisions really made by senior members of a department
while institutional entities Babove^ the department (e.g.,
tenure and promotion committee, chief academic officer,
president, trustees) Brubber-stamp^ those decisions? Or is there a
history at the institution where department recommendations
regarding tenure decisions are overturned by others in the
General Tenure Expectations
What is the balance between expectations for teaching, scholarly
work and service?
Who has the primary say in the outcome of tenure decisions (e.g.,
senior department members, tenure and promotion committee, chief
academic officer, president, trustees)?
What is the timeline for reappointment, promotion, and tenure
decisions at your institution?
What documentation will you need to provide at each review?
What institutional opportunities exist to promote your teaching
Are teaching assistants available to help with your teaching and
grading? If so, what regular course or lab-related tasks could you
assign to your teaching assistant(s) rather than completing yourself?
Is the department supportive of active learning approaches in the
classroom and laboratory?
What are the institutional and departmental norms or requirements for
syllabus contents, office hours, final grade distributions, and
Does the department recognize the need to minimize the number of
new teaching preparations during the pre-tenure period?
What information is used in evaluating teaching (e.g., student
evaluations, colleague evaluations)?
- Can a faculty member perform their own evaluation of information
specific to their course and include it in their dossier?
- Are there established procedures for classroom visits and feedback
by senior colleagues?
What internal and external funding sources are available to support
Would it be helpful (and possible) to hire a technician or a postdoc to
work full-time in your laboratory?
Is your department supportive of teaching schedules that leave blocks
of time to conduct research?
Are collaborative projects valued in the tenure process?
What opportunities are available for you to attend conferences to
disseminate your work and identify potential collaborators?
What priorities do you have for your service activities at your own
institution and in your broader professional community?
What strategies will you employ to protect yourself from excessive
process? If one of these entities carries more weight than the
other, it is essential to know their expectations.
For example, many undergraduate institutions in the US
have raised their expectations that faculty members publish
scholarly work. At such institutions, untenured members of
the department often have scholarly expectations that exceed
what was expected of their senior colleagues, especially those
colleagues who were hired many years earlier. Chemistry
lends itself to collaborating with students in research, an
excellent educational experience for undergraduates. There
are instances where senior colleagues at PUIs are not
supportive of the growing emphasis that is being placed on
publications, perhaps going so far as to express the view that time
spent undertaking research detracts from one’s teaching. If
junior faculty members are expected to undertake research,
these individuals may be more interested in the experience
that student collaborators get from participating. While tenure
committees and chief academic officers usually value the
educational experience that students get from conducting
research, they rarely are willing to substitute it for the
publications expected for tenure. In this situation, the potential exists
to get messages from a department that the student educational
experiences you are providing are sufficient, whereas the
institutional entity actually making the decision does not have
Pursue funding for your research
The time period to a tenure decision passes quickly and it is
important to get a research laboratory up and running as soon
as possible. Preliminary data generated in the early years
provide the basis for more compelling grant proposals to funding
agencies. Most faculty members are given some amount of
start-up funds. While it might be tempting to want to stretch
these funds out, that may slow down your ability to set up a
laboratory and generate important preliminary results.
A faculty member at a PhD-granting institution is fully
aware of the need to pursue funding for their work, and likely
needs no prodding to vigorously identify potential sources of
funds and submit grant proposals. At PUIs, the need to pursue
sources of funding for scholarly work may be less
emphasized. Many PUIs have institutional programs that provide
summer stipends for research students or modest funds to
undertake research. Untenured faculty members are often
prioritized in these programs, given that they are trying to
establish themselves during a probationary period. Even if the norm
is that these funds are Brotated^ among different members of
the faculty, untenured faculty members can often make the
case for more frequent rounds of support.
US Federal agencies such as the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH)
have the Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and
Academic Research Enhancement Awards (AREA – R15)
programs, respectively, which are intended for faculty
members at less research-intensive institutions. Admittedly, these
external grant programs are highly competitive. Many initial
submissions are not funded, but feedback from the reviewers
and program officers is helpful in determining whether the
work has the potential to get funded and how to improve a
resubmission in the next cycle. The sooner a faculty member
starts this process the better. Direct communication with the
program officer, prior to submitting a grant, can be very
beneficial in determining how a faculty member’s research
can meet the program officer’s goals for the program.
Learning what the priorities are for the grant program, and
what the program officer may be looking for, increases the
likelihood of finding a receptive audience for a research
A faculty member should also explore all potential avenues
for funding. Many regional, state, and non-governmental
agencies provide funding; though likely much less than NSF
or NIH, this funding is helpful, both in monetary terms and in
validating the quality of the research ideas by demonstrating
that they are fundable.
Writing proposals is an effective way to develop and refine
research ideas, and unsuccessful attempts at securing external
support can be used as a justification for continued internal
awards with the argument that the funds are needed to
generate preliminary data that will make future grant proposals
more competitive. Federal agencies and organizations such
as the Council on Undergraduate Research [
] offer grant
writing workshops or webinars that can provide valuable
advice on writing more competitive proposals. Untenured
faculty members should approach their institution for support to
attend one or more of these sessions and argue that it should
not diminish any annual allotment of funds to attend a
professional conference. Also, find one or more colleagues who
have experience with proposal writing who will provide you
with honest critiques of drafts of your proposals.
As much as the feedback in the form of reviews for your
proposals is beneficial, participating in the review process can
be even more enlightening. A faculty member can volunteer to
act as a reviewer for the major funding agencies. Participating
in a review, particularly in a panel review, provides a better
perspective of what the best and worst grant proposals look
like, how reviewers are influenced by what is written, and how
the program officer is involved in the selection of
submissions. All these insights will influence and improve your
subsequent proposals; and as an added bonus, serving as a
reviewer for a grant counts as service to the broader scientific
Be judicious in taking on service responsibilities
Another important consideration is to determine the extent to
which service to the profession, institution, and department is
counted in the tenure decision and be judicious in agreeing to
service responsibilities. There never seem to be enough hours
in the day for teaching and research obligations; service
responsibilities usually detract from the time for these
obligations. While people might be favorably impressed by the
professional service responsibilities you are undertaking outside
the department and the visibility you are gaining in the
profession, they often will not substitute such service for the need
for scholarly publications. An advantage of being untenured is
that it is often easier to turn down service requests by
reminding the person asking that you are still in the early
stages of establishing yourself as a teacher and scholar.
Since everyone is required to do some service, it is better to
pursue those opportunities that may help you develop as a
teacher or scholar if they are available. For example, agreeing
to organize your department’s seminar program often will
allow you to invite individuals to campus whose work overlaps
with your own, which is an excellent way to get feedback on
your early research plans, network with your research
community, identify potential collaborators on future projects, or
identify outside evaluators for your proposals, manuscripts, or
upcoming tenure decision. Similarly, service on an
institutional committee focused on promoting and awarding institutional
funds for scholarly work will often help develop ideas about
how to write more persuasive proposals. Service on an
institutional committee aimed at improving teaching will allow
you to learn about a variety of teaching styles that may
influence your own classroom or laboratory activities. It may be
appropriate to volunteer for service opportunities that have the
ability to enhance your research or teaching and then use that
service as a justification for turning down requests for
activities that are peripheral to your main goal of getting tenure. A
strong tenure portfolio will present a narrative about who you
are as a faculty member and what you bring to your institution.
Being selective about your service can help you to build this
narrative in a cohesive way.
Other considerations in the early years of a faculty position
Developing as a teacher
Many new faculty members soon realize that they have not
spent much time thinking about how to be an effective teacher.
Many institutions have a learning center that offers programs
aimed at promoting effective teaching and learning. These
may cover topics that seem relatively mundane (e.g.,
constructing a syllabus) to those that are more profound (e.g.,
inclusive teaching). They may function on a one-time,
dropin basis or require an individual to commit in advance to a
series of sessions, at times with reading or other assignments
for each session. There are people who do research on how to
be a more effective teacher and how to more effectively
promote student learning. Many faculty members are too busy
with their own research to have time to follow this literature.
Institutionally organized activities are a convenient way to
learn about some of the findings of this work and use them
to improve one’s teaching. Participation in activities such as
these may also be used to justify turning down requests for
certain service responsibilities that will not help you advance
your teaching or scholarly work.
In the early years, you should advocate for minimizing the
number of new courses you teach if your department is not
already attentive to this matter. It takes several iterations to feel
comfortable with the material in a course, so having some
continuity in your yearly teaching assignments is desirable.
Whether using a lecture or active learning approach, most
teachers will make significant adjustments to their teaching
methods in the first few iterations of a new course.
It is also essential to understand how your teaching will be
weighted and evaluated in the tenure process. The relative
weighting of teaching and research will likely impact the time
you devote to these two activities. It is common to hear faculty
members at PhD-granting institutions indicate that evaluations
of teaching effectiveness are less important than scholarly
accomplishments in tenure and promotion decisions. What role
do student evaluations have in the evaluation of your
teaching? If student evaluations are important, are there particular
questions in the evaluation rubric that are deemed more
important than others by those making the tenure decision? Can
you perform your own student evaluation that is more specific
to activities in your course or lab and include the results of that
in your dossier? You should consider asking students to
complete an informal midterm evaluation of the course so that you
can respond to any major issues before the final, formal
evaluations are completed at the end of the semester. Do
departmental and institutional evaluators have access to the average
grades you award and how are such averages considered in the
process? What role do colleague letters play? Will colleagues
sit in on your classes, and are there established procedures for
how these classroom visits and feedback from them are to be
conducted? Identify whether there are institutional and
departmental norms or requirements for syllabus content, office
hours, final grade distributions, and academic
accommodations, and conform to those norms.
The growing body of research on how people learn and
how to create classroom and laboratory environments that
facilitate student learning consistently shows that passive
forms of learning (e.g., lecturing and cookbook laboratory
experiences) are less effective at promoting student learning
than active forms of learning (e.g., students work
collaboratively on questions in class and are given open-ended
problems to investigate in the laboratory) [
]. However, the
role of the instructor and nature of the exercise is important
in influencing the success of active learning. Some of the
programs offered by your institutional learning centers are
likely aimed at helping faculty members with the effective
use of active learning. However, some students and senior
colleagues may be unfamiliar with and therefore resistant to
active learning environments. A new faculty member should
understand the degree to which active learning already occurs
and is encouraged within the department. New faculty
members are less likely to encounter pushback from students in an
environment where considerable active learning already
occurs. There are also more faculty mentors available to help
with the effective use of active learning. While the three of us
are involved in an NSF-funded project aimed at promoting the
use of active learning among analytical chemistry instructors
, some new faculty members may find in their
environment it is wise to take a Bsafer^ approach and primarily use
traditional teaching methods until securing a favorable tenure
Whatever teaching methods you choose to use, it is
important to maintain reasonable limits on the time you spend
preparing for class. Teaching a new course or laboratory is
incredibly time-consuming; however, it is possible to spend
more time on course preparation than is prudent. Junior
faculty may prepare far more lecture material than can possibly
be covered in a single class period, spend hours on additional
reading in fear of being unable to answer a student question, or
get caught up looking for the perfect example problem or
video. By starting class preparation with a focus on what
you want students to learn, you can focus your class planning
and streamline your preparations. This method is sometimes
called Bbackwards course design^ because you begin with
what you want students to know after a class and work
backwards from there to choose lecture topics and class activities
It is increasingly common that research questions are
undertaken by teams of investigators. Research collaborations are a
way to take on more complex problems that require more
areas of expertise for success, identify new avenues of work,
and bring in new sources of funding. One of the best ways to
identify potential research collaborations is by regularly
attending a specialty conference in your area of research.
These conferences are often smaller and less formal and
provide more opportunities for networking with colleagues. It is
important when interviewing for a faculty position to ask
about the support available to attend conferences to
disseminate your work and pursue professional connections. User
facilities at nearby institutions and national laboratory
facilities are another way to connect with potential collaborators
and gain access to specialized equipment that may not be
available at your home institution.
Before pursuing collaborations, a new faculty member
should gauge his or her department’s view of collaborative
research. Many departments expect to see some degree of
research independence. Often it is expected that persons
distance themselves in some way from their prior doctoral and
postdoctoral research such that they are not doing the next
studies that would have been done with those projects, but
using their prior experience in developing new lines of
inquiry. Collaborative research projects often have a lead
investigator, and a department may expect that a new faculty member
have at least one project in which he or she is filling that role.
However, some PUIs have very limited environments for
completing research and may be pleased with any published
outcomes that have the name of their school affiliated with it.
They may not care whether the faculty member is contributing
in a secondary manner to the project so long as he or she is
staying engaged in research. With any collaboration, it is
important to be able to explain your specific intellectual
contribution to the project and how it is essential to the completion
of the project.
A new faculty member will soon learn that there is much more
to getting a lab started, and maintained, beyond the purchase
of chemicals and equipment. One of the most time-consuming
aspects of leading a research lab is training the personnel. At
the earliest stage, you will be the sole repository of knowledge
on how to carry out your desired research. In time, with a large
enough group and sufficient overlap in students, the lab will
develop its own Binstitutional knowledge^ and may be
selfsustaining. If you can afford to hire a lab manager and/or
postdoc, that person can become an important source of
institutional knowledge, but for many this will not be an option.
Spending time early on to develop a set training plan for new
students can be extremely valuable. The plan should be clearly
written, and the outcomes known in advance so that the
student’s strengths and weaknesses can be assessed and
addressed. Of course, this plan must be tailored to individual
students: consider the level of the student and what knowledge
he or she brings to the lab.
A common mistake among new faculty is to assume that all
students who join your lab will be just as motivated and
committed as you were when you first joined a lab. Remember,
you are a tenure track professor, so you are the exception not
the norm. Clearly communicating your expectations of your
research students and setting reasonable goals for them is
crucial in maintaining a productive lab. In addition to regular
group meetings, it may be beneficial to schedule weekly
one-on-one meetings with each research student to monitor
and guide his or her individual progress. These regular
meetings are also an opportunity to monitor the lab culture and
address student concerns before they affect lab morale.
Students should understand expectations for using shared
reagents and equipment, ordering supplies, repairing or
replacing broken items, and other aspects of lab citizenship. Regular
and open discussions about authorship and lab citizenship
help establish a positive lab culture.
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are becoming a
more frequent safety requirement in many institutions. The
SOPs can form the core of the lab’s institutional knowledge,
particularly when student turnover is high. A thorough
collection of SOPs can maintain crucial information in the lab when
students leave, and involving students in writing/updating the
SOPs will be greatly beneficial should they pursue industrial
careers. SOPs ensure that experiments are done consistently,
even when executed by different students, and they help
maintain compliance in waste disposal and safety practices.
Similarly, clear expectations and regular review of lab
notebooks will ensure that key information is available when
trouble-shooting experiments or drafting manuscripts.
Electronic lab notebooks, which are gaining popularity in
industry, may benefit you by maintaining permanent, legible
records of the work that students perform in your lab.
Creating time for research
Having time for research is more of an issue for faculty
members at PUIs, although as discussed above, all faculty members
must resist the urge to participate in numerous service
responsibilities to the institution and profession that detract from
one’s ability to write proposals, undertake research, and write
manuscripts. Understand what help is available through
teaching assistants and staff (e.g., grading, instructional laboratory
preparation, instrument maintenance) and delegate
responsibilities to these individuals. Faculty members with a relatively
heavy teaching load should advocate for a course and lab
schedule that leaves blocks of time for research activities.
One possibility is to request one or two days of the week with
no classes. Another is to have unbalanced semesters with a
heavier teaching load in one. Be judicious in the number of
assignments and laboratory reports in your courses so as to not
overwhelm yourself with grading responsibilities. In planning
your research program, develop a mix of short-term and
longterm projects and balance high-risk, high-impact projects with
more straightforward work.
For faculty at PUIs, the summer is a vital time for getting
research completed. This is the best time to work with and
train undergraduate student collaborators. Make clear that you
expect them to continue the work in some capacity during the
academic year. If your department does not have a system in
place that encourages academic year research for credit,
advocate for such a possibility with your students. Undergraduate
students who have been able to conduct research in the
summer make much more progress during the academic year than
those who have not had a summer experience. One reason is
that you have more time to train them in the summer. Another
is that they know the time constraints of different aspects of
the project and make better use of their time. During the
semester, you may be able to design special projects for students
in laboratory courses that help advance your research.
Coursebased undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are
known to improve student learning outcomes and keep PUI
faculty research projects moving forward during the academic
With the overall goal of securing tenure, there is one more
crucial step that can be easily overlooked – document
everything in a timely manner. It is easy to believe, when you are
busy with teaching, research, and service activities, that you
will remember all the pertinent items to include in your tenure
application. Invariably, something may be forgotten or
overlooked. As soon as possible determine the timeline for
reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions, and the
format and limitations of reappointment and tenure application
packages (e.g., page limits, document types) and begin to
compile materials for these applications. It is important to
provide evaluators with a thorough application that
encompasses your record and accomplishments without
overwhelming them with every document you have produced or piece of
correspondence you have received. Make digital copies of
letters of thanks, acceptance letters, and even rejection letters
as soon as you get them. Store them in a specific tenure folder
on your computer along with all other relevant materials (e.g.,
grant proposals, manuscripts, an up-to-date CV). Ask a
committee chair for a formal letter of thanks for service, whether it
is an on-campus or professional activity. Such letters will often
highlight specific contributions you have made that your
tenure evaluators may not be aware of or will omit in their letters.
Collecting everything together over the years into a
wellorganized folder will help you alleviate the stress that may
occur when preparing your tenure application and allow you
to carefully evaluate which materials to include in the
package. When the application is compiled, be sure to emphasize
the importance of what you have done. Do not expect that
value of your work (e.g., publications, grants, service) will
be properly recognized on its own, particularly as higher
levels of review will be conducted by faculty and
administrators with little to no knowledge of your field and its
Given the need to balance teaching, research, service, and a
personal life, it might be tempting to conclude that those
individuals who are good multitaskers are more likely to succeed
as a faculty member. In reality, studies have shown that
multitasking is an ineffective way to complete work. Most people
are more productive when they focus on one activity at a time
]. It is important to compartmentalize one’s time into
teaching, research, service, and personal activities. Adopt and
adhere to a weekly schedule where certain blocks of time are
devoted to one activity. Use breaks in the academic calendar
for work on one or two larger projects (e.g., writing a grant
proposal or manuscript) that need attention, and delay
handling less time intensive responsibilities to the shorter time
intervals available when classes resume. It is important to
prioritize responsibilities and focus on those activities that
are most urgent. It is also important to recognize that your
priorities will change over an academic year and over the
years leading up to a tenure decision. Establish a timetable
for completing the various activities associated with a larger
project and ensure that you adhere to that timetable, even if it
means putting some other things on the back burner.
New faculty members may at times feel overwhelmed by
all the responsibilities in the first few years. Those who are
successful understand the expectations, prioritize their
responsibilities, and focus on those most important for securing
tenure. Fulfilling the many responsibilities of a faculty position
does become easier with repetition and experience, leading
most to conclude that a career as a faculty member is a busy
but rewarding endeavor.
Michelle L. Kovarik is Assistant
Professor of Chemistry at Trinity
College in Hartford, Connecticut.
Her research interests include
measurements, and the use of
fluorescently labeled peptides for
enzyme assays. She is also involved
in scholarly activity to develop
materials for the undergraduate
analytical chemistry curriculum
that emphasize active learning
and engage students with the
Christopher R. Harrison is
Associate Professor of Chemistry
at San Diego State University. His
research focus centers around the
separation of biomolecules via
capillary electrophoresis, with a
particular emphasis on developing new
methods for athlete anti-doping
tests, and exploring the
fundamentals of electroosmotic flow control.
He has also been active in
incorporating digitals tools and methods in
his teaching, and developing active
learning materials for analytical
Thomas J. Wenzel is the Charles A.
Dana Professor of Chemistry at Bates
College in Lewiston, Maine. He
currently carries out research with the aid
of undergraduate students in the area of
chiral NMR shift reagents. His
research accomplishments were
recognized with the 2010 American
Chemical Society Award for Research
at an Undergraduate Institution. He is
active in efforts to reform the
undergraduate analytical chemistry
curriculum to include inquiry- and
1. Council on Undergraduate Research (https://www.cur.org/). Accessed on December 1 , 2017 .
2. Project 2061. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advance of Science; 1985 .
3. Science teaching reconsidered: a handbook . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1997 .
4. Bransford J , Brown AL , Cocking RR . How people learn: brain, mind, experience and school . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000 .
5. Pienta NJ , Cooper MM , Greenbowe TJ . Chemists' guide to effective teaching . Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River; 2005 .
6. Hohlach JM , Grove N , Bretz SL . Pre-service teacher as researcher: the value of inquiry in learning science . J Chem Educ . 2007 ; 84 : 1530 - 4 .
7. Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012 .
8. Kober N. Reaching students: what research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015 .
9. Cooper MM . Evidence-based reform of teaching and learning . Anal Bioanal Chem . 2014 ; 406 : 1 - 4 .
10. Galloway KR , Bretz SL . Measuring meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: a national cross-sectional study . J Chem Educ . 2015 ; 92 : 2006 - 18 .
11. Sandi-Urena S , Cooper MM , Stevens R . Effect of cooperative problem-based lab instruction on metacognition and problemsolving skills . J Chem Educ . 2012 ; 89 : 700 - 6 .
12. Analytical Sciences Digital Library (http://home.asdlib.org/). Accessed on 1 Dec 2017 .
13. Wiggins GP , McTighe J . Understanding by design . 2nd ed. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2005 .
14. Auchincloss LC , Laursen SL , Branchaw JL , Eagan K , Graham M , Hanauer DL , et al. Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report . CBE Life Sci Educ . 2014 ; 13 : 129 - 40 .
15. Weaver GC , Russell CB , Wink DJ . Inquiry-based and researchbased laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science . Nat Chem Biol . 2008 ; 4 : 577 - 80 .
16. Rosen C. The myth of multitasking . New Atlantis Spring. 2008 : 105 - 10 .