Communication pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ConfChem Conference on Case-Based Studies in Chemical Education: You (Want To) Call Yourself a Case Study Teacher? Christa L. Colyer* Department of Chemistry, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Much has been written about case study teaching resources and methods and, more recently, about the learning benefits attributable to case-based methods. However, it is not enough to be an excellent case study teacher with excellent outcomes. Bias towards one’s own personal teaching perspective, and the influence of how we were taught as students as opposed to how we were taught to teach, means that case study teachers may be vulnerable to self-doubt while wrestling with the perceived juxtaposition of content coverage versus contextualized instruction and also to an unpropitious peer reception. Effective case study teaching in chemistry requires not only effective pedagogies, but also effective politics, and success requires positive perceptions on the part of students being taught by the case study method, on the part of the case teacher him or herself, on the part of the case teacher’s peers, and on the part of the case teacher’s chair or department as a whole. This communication provides a brief synopsis of published research findings in this area, with opportunities to overcome barriers to the adoption of case study-based teaching in chemistry presented in Supporting Information. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Graduate Education/Research, Curriculum, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Professional Development, Student-Centered Learning based teaching methods. Quinlan5 concluded that “...if the [teaching] practice accorded with what the reviewer did or “would do” then it was evaluated positively...” and she noted that “... It may be difficult for reviewers to acknowledge a practice or goal as very different from their own, and still see that approach as effectively contributing to student learning.” By extension, because case study teaching in chemistry is not the norm, one might expect such a practice to be evaluated negatively by non-case study teaching peers. To foster peer acceptance of effective teaching strategies, which may differ from methods used by peers, professors must learn how to objectively and systematically evaluate teaching portfolios. Again, Quinlan5 argues that “The ability to recognize key pieces of information is a hallmark of expert thinking in the professions”, but because most chemistry professors are novices when it comes to pedagogical theory, they may lack the tools necessary to identify important evidence in teaching portfolios, and as such, they may be unable to fairly judge such a portfolio. Thus, faculty must learn how to review teaching dossiers, just as they have been trained to review a research manuscript or a grant proposal in our discipline. Furthermore, Tobias3 looks to corporate management strategies and the process of “buy-in” to ensure positive perceptions and implementation of teaching innovations. The question is: does the responsibility for obtaining buy-in fall to
D
espite an impressive base of case study teaching resources for chemistry professors, as offered by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science,1 adoption of or adaptation to active-learning techniques remains a challenge for most instructors. First, instructors must overcome the filter of their own experience as learners2 if they are to allow themselves to embrace case-study teaching. Second, instructors must wrest themselves away from the content versus context dilemma. Even if, and when, these barriers are overcome, case study teachers must explore key questions that are more political than pedagogical in nature. Tobias (ref 3, p 20) asserts that questions such as “Who wants change? Who is going to be made to feel insecure? Who profits from the status quo? How can the necessary players be gathered to counter institutional inertia?” must be answered, with a willingness to structure innovative changes in teaching in such a way that they will serve the needs of peers and the department. Nontraditional teaching strategies are likely to be viewed with some suspicion, whether or not they prove effective in the end. This may be due to the understandable tendency toward self-protectionism within an academic community. Ciesla and Lovejoy4 note that “Peers are both colleagues and competitors. Faculty in competitive environments may view peer review as a method for jockeying for power.” However, even when the “proof-is-in-the-pudding”, peer faculty members may be reluctant to learn from or adopt their colleagues’ best practices or may simply be ill-equipped to recognize the success of case© 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: December 12, 2012 260
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200789k | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 260−261
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
(3) Tobias, S. Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don’t. An occasional paper on neglected problems in science education; Research Corporation: Tuscon, AZ, 1992. (4) Ciesla, J.; Lovejoy, N. Peer review: A method for developing faculty leaders. Nurse Educ. 1997, 22, 41−47. (5) Quinlan, K. M. Inside the peer review process: how academics review a colleague’s teaching portfolio. Teach. Teacher Educ. 2002, 18, 1035−1049. (6) Lewis, J. J. Anais Nin Quotes. About.com, Women’s History. 1997−2005. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/qu_ anais_nin.htm (accessed Oct 2012).
the case study teacher or to the department chair? Because the chair is likely to have more tools at hand, such as a merit reward structure, and responsibility for course and room scheduling, and setting the agenda for department faculty meetings and retreats, it is possible that the chair can help to “pre-sell” teaching innovation. However challenging it may be for chairs to muster the necessary diplomacy and strategic planning behind teaching reform, this should supplant the lure of “quick fixes” from “creative loners”, which often fail.3 Unfortunately, prestigious research grant programs such as the NSF’s CAREER Award may be inadvertently encouraging unsustainable (even if well intentioned and promising) teaching reforms proposed by a junior faculty member trying to secure his or her tenure but acting without whole-department buy-in. In conclusion, the process of implementing case study teaching to improve student-learning outcomes is fraught with challenge but also with promise. Energy must be focused on the development of teaching resources; however, this is not the only and maybe not the biggest challenge. A quote from French−Cuban diarist and author Anais̈ Nin reminds us of the importance of teaching perspectives and perceptions: “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”6 Thus, understanding and addressing teacher perceptions and peer perceptions of case study-based teaching is of paramount importance, along with fostering a climate of support at the departmental level, if case study-based teaching and active learning in chemistry is to flourish. This can and should happen. This communication summarizes one of the invited papers to the ConfChem online conference Case-Based Studies in Chemical Education, held from May 6 to June 30, 2011 and hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE). This paper was discussed from May 27 to June 02, 2011. ConfChem conferences are open to the public and can be accessed at the CCCE Web site, http:// www.ccce.divched.org/.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The complete ConfChem paper includes a summary of some literature research in this area, along with opportunities to facilitate active learning and acceptance of innovative teaching strategies, such as case study teaching in chemistry. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
* E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The support of the NSF (CHE-0809756) and Wake Forest University is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES
(1) National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, 2010. Web. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ (accessed Oct 2012). (2) Markic, S.; Eilks, I. A case study on German first year chemistry student teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching, and their comparison with student teachers from other science teaching domains. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 25−34. 261
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200789k | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 260−261
