Chemical Education Today
A U.K. Approach To Counter Declining Enrollment in Chemistry and Related Disciplines at the University Level by David Read School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ
[email protected] The period 2000-2009 represented a turbulent decade for chemistry in the United Kingdom's higher education system. After several department closures, most notably at Kings College London and Exeter,1 which followed a period of decline in undergraduates studying the sciences, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)2 began to recognize the growing problems for what it termed “Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects” (SIVS). These subjects included chemistry, physics, mathematics, and engineering. (The biological sciences are not considered to be in the SIVS group; undergraduate numbers have been buoyant over the same time period.) Furthermore, cognate disciplines such as materials science experienced difficulties in attracting researchers because of the declining numbers of graduates (1, 2). Chemists have struggled to get their message across to prospective students, yet recruitment has not increased in response (3). Similar concerns in Ireland prompted a change in the approach to both teaching and funding chemistry in secondary schools (4). In the U.K., the effort to address declining undergraduate enrollment in the sciences has focused on universities. Attracting Undergraduates with the Chemistry for Our Future Program In 2006, HEFCE awarded £3.25 million to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) to run a pilot project titled Chemistry for Our Future (CFOF). CFOF aimed to “help ensure that there is a sustainable chemical science base within higher education which will attract able students from all backgrounds and provide chemical science courses appropriate for students and employers in the 21st century” (5). CFOF strove to meet its goals in two ways: expanding outreach activities to promote the excitement of chemistry to a new generation of budding scientists, and modifying the content and delivery of undergraduate curricula to take account of the changing needs of today's students. Although the RSC managed the program centrally, activities were largely delivered by partner universities that were able to bid for funding to support their work. The outcomes of different projects were shared with the wider community at three national conferences over the course of the program, and further collaboration emerged between partners at a range of different levels. CFOF was divided into four strands as described below. 898
Journal of Chemical Education
_
_
Strand 1;Chemistry: The Next Generation, and Spectroscopy in a Suitcase Chemistry: The Next Generation aimed to widen participation by encouraging students from nontraditional backgrounds to consider further study in chemistry. This was done by bringing chemistry (and chemists) to the attention of an audience of youngsters who may not have previously considered that the subject was for them. Spectroscopy in a Suitcase brought state-of-the-art equipment into schools to breathe new life into the teaching of related topics and to give students new insight into the way chemistry works in the real world. Strand 2;Schoolteacher Fellowships Secondary schoolteachers were employed by the RSC to spend one year in a university chemistry department where they addressed issues related to the school-to-university transition and delivered outreach activities (6, 7). Strand 3;Higher Education Curriculum Development This strand supported 10 school-to-university transition projects in partner universities. It also facilitated the development of context- and problem-based learning activities. Strand 4;Widening Access to University Laboratories This strand supported two different approaches to give school pupils and their teachers access to university laboratories to enhance the experience of practical chemistry. In 2008, following a successful interim evaluation by the National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) (8), HEFCE released further funding of £1.65 million to extend CFOF for another year, thus, supporting the program until July 31, 2009. Similar pilot projects were run concurrently by the equivalent professional bodies in physics, engineering, and mathematics, with evaluations also proving to be largely positive (9). Some Key Chemistry for Our Future Successes Bridging the gap between secondary school and university has become a significant challenge for students and teaching staff alike. Retention rates are a particular concern, with several factors contributing to student disengagement (10). The recruitment of schoolteacher fellows under strands 2 and 3 (the author was employed under the latter) brought academics into contact with
_
Vol. 87 No. 9 September 2010 pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 10.1021/ed100647s Published on Web 07/21/2010
Chemical Education Today
experienced schoolteachers. The interactions were revelatory for both parties. University staff became much more aware of the nature of teaching and learning going on in the modern classroom. They began to understand why students no longer appear capable of doing things that were once straightforward for firstyear undergraduates. University staff also became more aware of the different mindset of today's undergraduate cohort. Provision of practical skills training at both secondary and university level was supported by the creation of an Interactive Lab Primer by a team of teacher fellows. This primer combined videos and animations with detailed instructions on applying a range of lab techniques (11). The primer has greatly assisted students arriving at university unprepared for practical laboratory work. Other initiatives included increasing the use of electronic response systems (“clickers”) to facilitate student engagement in lectures, help educators identify students' misconceptions, and provide instant feedback. Prior to CFOF, the use of such technology was limited in U.K. chemistry despite its common use in other disciplines. CFOF's outreach activities have raised the profile of chemistry for prospective students. “Outreach” in this sense refers to any activity in which university staff or students interact with youngsters of all ages. Such work has been going on in U.K. universities and across the world for many years, with common ventures including demonstrations (12) and hands-on activities (13) run either in schools or university laboratories. Strands 1 and 4 of CFOF provided funding for such outreach, and the evaluation of this work formed a key part of the NFER evaluation document. The findings certainly back up the perception that bringing youngsters into university laboratories has the greatest impact, yet the evidence suggests that many less laborintensive forms of outreach are also effective in engaging pupils. Although a causal relationship is difficult to ascertain, some evidence indicates increased recruitment of students from nontraditional backgrounds owing to widening participation. A potential downside to the increased recruitment, however, stems from concerns about retention rates of these students (10). Another significant success of CFOF was the new spirit of collaboration observed between chemistry departments in different universities. The identification and dissemination of “best practices” was a key tenet of the program; the fact that academics from different institutions were sharing their teaching approaches and even resources with each other was a new development in U.K. chemistry. The fact that such sharing was novel to U.K. educators may seem bizarre to teachers in countries where such collaboration is commonplace, but U.K. chemistry departments have traditionally been research-intensive, an emphasis that has engendered a spirit of competition rather than of cooperation. Some Useful Learning Points The CFOF project was managed efficiently from within the RSC. Dedicated staff oversaw the different strands, and project officers interacted regularly with project partners. There was a strong sense that those in charge had a good grasp of what was happening at what was called the “sharp end”, where partners were engaging in activity. Such planning and organization is required for success in these sorts of projects. Ensuring the sustainability of project activity has proved to be a big challenge. Most of the staff that came into universities as
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
_
part of the CFOF moved on at the end of the project, but aspects of their practice have been embedded. Some of the resources developed under CFOF are available for anyone to use on the program Web site (5). Although educators are using such resources more widely, it is a challenge to raise awareness and encourage those unfamiliar with the project to take advantage of them. Some of the work resulting from the CFOF program has been published: An example is that of Woodward et al. on the use of problem-based learning activities to engage first-year students in different ways of learning (14). Finally, it was important that all CFOF strands and projects had clear objectives associated with them and their time scales were monitored closely. This was done effectively during CFOF, and most projects reached a definitive conclusion. Furthermore, the findings of the ongoing evaluations were disseminated rapidly to assist projects as they were developing. Looking to the Future In a vote of confidence for the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) sector, HEFCE and its Welsh counterpart HEFCW have funded the National Higher Education STEM (HE STEM) program (15), which began operating on August 1, 2009. The program will run for 3 years, with funding of £21 million to deliver its aims of raising demand for STEM degrees and widening participation (16). Further commendable aims include boosting higher-level skills in the workforce and enhancing employer engagement in higher education. The HE STEM program draws on the experience of the pilot projects preceding it, with best practices being shared between disciplines. Collaboration is at the core of the HE STEM program's ethos, and the long-term sustainability of activities is a key concern that will be addressed throughout its duration. It should be noted, however, that the sands have shifted somewhat in the U.K. In keeping with much of the developed world, we are suffering a degree of economic turmoil. A new government has pledged to rein in the budget deficit, largely through cuts in government spending. It is quite possible that funding for HE STEM will be the last significant tranche of government money handed to universities to support these kinds of projects for the foreseeable future. For this reason, it is vital that all stakeholders ensure the success of the program, both to ensure the best possible outcome for STEM in the U.K. and to make a good case to the government that this work should continue. In conclusion, the U.K. experience is that governmentfunded intervention can be effective in promoting chemistry and other physical sciences. Such funding can also encourage educators to foster new approaches that will support students academically once they arrive at university. Educators and institutions participating in such programs require a straightforward philosophy of what they want to achieve and how they intend to achieve it. Only by providing a clear philosophy, well-planned activities, and adequate funding will it be possible to produce a genuine transformation in how chemistry is promoted and taught to engage upcoming generations of students. Notes
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
1. These issues were widely reported in the national media. One of many interesting articles in the national press from 2004 can be found here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/ education-news/chemistry-is-there-a-future-for-teaching-one-ofthe-great-scientific-disciplines-754488.html (accessed Jul 2010).
_
Vol. 87 No. 9 September 2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
899
Chemical Education Today
2. HEFCE is a government-funded body that distributes money to universities in England. It should be noted that students in England and Wales currently pay an annual tuition fee of £3225 to “top up” university income. There is currently much debate regarding the removal of the current cap, opening up the possibility for different universities to charge different fees. More information about HEFCE can be found on their Web site: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ (accessed Jul 2010).
Literature Cited A Matter of Survival? Nat. Mater. 2003, 2, 1. Where Have All the Chemists Gone? Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 671. Adam, D. Nature 2001, 411, 408–409. Childs, P. E. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur. 2002, 3, 361-369. Chemistry for Our Future Home Page. http://www.rsc.org/Education/ CFOF/ (accessed Jul 2010). 6. Shallcross, D. E.; Harrison, T. G. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 101–104. 7. Harrison, T. G.; Shallcross, D. E. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2007, 3, 77-78.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
900
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 87 No. 9 September 2010
_
8. NFER evaluation of CFOF pilot phase. http://www.rsc.org/ images/NFERFinalreport_tcm18-159340.pdf (accessed Jul 2010). 9. Details and evaluations of SIVS pilot projects: http://www. hestem.ac.uk/HEFCEPilotProjects/tabid/94/Default.aspx (accessed Jul 2010). 10. Walker S. Student Retention and Widening Participation. http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/ps/documents/toolkits/toolkits/ student_retention_widening_participation_2009.pdf (accessed Jul 2010). 11. The Interactive Lab Primer Home Page. http://chem-ilp.net/ (accessed Jul 2010). 12. Waldman, A. S.; Schechinger, L.; Nowich, J. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 762. 13. Koehler, B. G.; Park, L. Y.; Kaplan, L. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1505. 14. Williams, D. P.; Woodward, J. R.; Symons, S. L.; Davies, D. L. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 33–42. 15. HEFCE original press release. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/ hefce/2009/stem.htm (accessed Jul 2010). 16. HEFCE Web site. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/ (accessed Jul 2010).
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
