he biology programs that have been described in this chapter—and throughout this book—have different students, courses, personalities, and traditions. Yet they consistently produce students who are enthusiastic about biology and faculty members who are enthusiastic about teaching. What are they doing right? First, they demonstrate that the best kind of teaching is one-on-one teaching. The personal bonds forged in a seminar room, amidst the clutter of a laboratory bench, or at a Friday afternoon gathering cannot be replaced. As many biologists have attested, an interest in science often is sparked not only by the fascination of the subject matter but also by a particular individual—a research mentor or teacher who guides young people in their careers. Providing this kind of personal attention for all students can be difficult where already large enrollments are increasing. Nevertheless, many science departments—recognizing the crucial role that mentoring plays in a young scientist's development—are structuring their offerings to maximize personal interactions between faculty members and students. Second, successful undergraduate biology programs demonstrate that change must be firmly grounded at the departmental or programmatic level. Good ideas can come from many sources. But to have a lasting effect, those ideas have to be modified, adapted, and embraced until they become part of the local culture. The process requires leadership and perseverance. It usually involves changes in attitudes, perceptions, and goals. In that respect, effective department heads often are those who can instill positive attitudes without being autocratic. Administrators, too, can influence the culture that surrounds teaching through funds for travel or curriculum development, new faculty positions, and a willingness to support changes in the reward structure. Third, educational improvements generally require continuous and incremental change. A commitment to good teaching implies a constant willingness to look for what works and what does not work. New curricula and teaching techniques may be important, but the most critical factor is a steadfast desire to build on teaching techniques and experiences that are successful. Finally, good teaching is infectious. It may be true that good research is recognized globally and good teaching is recognized locally, but local rewards can be immediate and personal. Many faculty members chose to enter academia because they were interested in teaching. When they find themselves part of a community of scholars committed to teaching, that interest can flourish. Departments and institutions must be structured in such a way as to allow such communities to grow and prosper. Above all, good teaching highlights the underlying connections between the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Here, in the fundamental objectives of higher education, is where students and faculty members derive their richest rewards. "We get excited about doing biology because it's fun," says Stanford's Craig Heller. "And people who are excited about biology like to convey their enthusiasm."

Reed College University of California- Berkeley University of Wisconsin-Madison University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Many Paths to Success Undergraduates in Research at the University of Arizona A Community of Scholars at Stanford University Reaching Across Generations at Morehouse College Lessons Learned Faculty Voices A World Of Opportunity Changes in the Classroom The Laboratory Experience Faculty in the Crossfire Expanding The Talent Pool