Downloaded via ARIZONA STATE UNIV on July 6, 2018 at 15:22:38 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 2
Chemical Education Research as an Emergent Scholarly Field in Costa Rica S. Sandi-Urena,*,1 R. M. Romero,1,2 and J. Leitón Chacón1 1School
of Chemistry and University of Costa Rica, San Pedro, Montes de Oca, 2060, San Jose, Costa Rica 2Centro de Investigaciones en Productos Naturales (CIPRONA), University of Costa Rica, San Pedro, Montes de Oca, 2060, San Jose, Costa Rica *E-mail:
[email protected].
Chemistry education and chemical education research are not exempt of the processes of globalization, its potentialities and the obstacles it may bring about. Thus, chemistry educators must rethink chemical education research and practice from this globalized perspective. Effective communication amongst members of the international community is critical in this process and an enhanced understanding of others’ contexts (e.g. history, resources, limitations, worldviews) is indispensable to achieve it. This chapter focuses on the development of chemical education and chemical education research, CER, in Costa Rica. It provides a historical perspective and information on the current state of the matter that afford readers the possibility to contrast with their own experiences. This chapter intends to introduce provocative thoughts to nurture international reflection and conversation and to assist readers in broadening their perspectives on chemical education.
© 2018 American Chemical Society Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Introduction That chemistry is a universal language and that chemists can communicate even when they do not share a spoken language has become a commonplace of international reference (1). However, chemistry is more than chemical structures and formulas and effective communication amongst chemists and chemistry educators from around the world requires more than a highly sophisticated, technical, global code. Furthermore, even a common spoken language is far from guaranteeing effective communication when cultural and idiosyncratic traits are unknown or ignored. Mutual understanding amongst human groups of any kind is bettered when we recognize our differences are as relevant as our similarities. As scientists and educators we have more to communicate than just plain chemistry. The presumption the practice of chemistry and its teaching and learning are somehow disconnected from the context in which they are embedded is deeply erroneous. Efforts to bring together international peers through underscoring of commonalities have, understandably, dominated international chemical education discourse; nonetheless, they risk overshadowing the uniqueness of the practices of chemistry and chemical education. After all, it continues to be those most influential global partners who shape and characterize priorities and common trends in the global landscape. As relevant and current as it is, globalization challenges us to avoid misunderstanding it for normalization. Otherwise, the realities (interests, obstacles, priorities, etc.) of less influential partners in the global discussion may fall through the cracks into invisibility. Parchmann (2) proposed the analogy of a tacit confrontation between “Davids” and “Goliaths” where less-developed chemical education research communities from developing countries struggle to become integrated in the wider global research stage. Turkey is a significant outlier in this trend: according to Sözbilir (3) it is the second highest ranked contributor of chemical education research, CER, literature. Sözbilir links the remarkable increase in publications—which were only rare before 1999—to governmental policy he describes as “publish or perish”. In this approach, publishing internationally became the single most important criterion for promotion in the academic career. Nonetheless, the author warns the quality of the publications and their connections to the local needs and problems are under scrutiny. A quick analysis of the ratio of publications from advanced economies to emergent markets and developing economies (4) in Chemistry Education Research and Practice and the Journal of Chemical Education—the top two journals leading the global CER discussion—depicts a scenario dominated by the former, Table 1. Although the figures are already telling, the scenario is even more polarized when one considers nine of the publications coming from the emergent markets and developing economies are from Turkey, a country that has seen its CER production significantly increased since the turn of the century (3). Thus, all other emergent markets and developing economies represent only 7% of the “fully authored” articles. What causes this sparse contribution is a matter that deserves exploration (see Parchmann (2) for conjectures on this regard). For now, we contend not only access to the journals hinders participation, but more so the fact that there is not a substantial amount of research originating from 10 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
developing countries. This raises even more questions since, unlike science research, educational research demands less material resources (e.g. chemicals, facilities, instrumentation) and one could speculate this type of research would be more accessible. Alternatively, it may be that the understanding of research and the nature of its outcomes simply do not match global expectations prompting exclusion from dominating journals, both through self-exclusion and through the reviewing process. If one were to disentangle data further, it would be immediately evident not all developed countries contribute research at a similar rate. And furthermore, for those countries contributing the most, there are clear inequalities in terms of geography and type of institution within the country. Hence, the country-of-origin lens may fail to catch relevant subtleties. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this paper it suffices to argue Chemical Education is not an enterprise informed internationally. Although of less global impact, the contributions of an array of journals at the regional level should not be overlooked. Química Nova and Química Nova na Escola (Brazilian Chemical Society), Educación Química (National Autonomous University of Mexico), Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry (Royal Australian Chemical Institute), International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education (formerly Eurasian Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education), and Khimiya (Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria) are just a few examples to name.
Table 1. Contributions to the Journal of Chemical Education and Chemistry Education Research and Practice by (a) advanced economies and (b) emergent markets and developing economies in 2017, (168 articles total) Country designation
Article count (% from total) Fully authoreda
Jointly authoredb
Advanced economies
147 (87.5)
13 (7.7)
Emergent markets and developing economies
21 (12.5)
8 (4.8)
a
All authors from the same country designation. the two country designations.
b
Collaboration between authors from
Thus, while common occurrences such as the apparent persistence of some misconceptions in vastly different learning environments may not cease to amaze us, they are just part of a broader, more complex picture. We view understanding others’ contexts and experiences—including those profoundly dissimilar—essential to fully grasp an enhanced comprehension of their practice of chemistry and its teaching and learning. In addition to reciprocally illuminating our learning, reflecting on one’s own context and practice through the lens of others has the potential of informing the understanding of one’s own practice. This chapter acquaints readers with chemical education and the emergence of chemical education research in Costa Rica. Although unique, the circumstances described here for this developing country may be comparable to those of similar nations. By extending understanding of each other’s reality and trajectory, 11 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
we believe the international chemical education community will be able to communicate and to cooperate more effectively.
Brief History and Context of Chemistry Education in Costa Rica Certainly, “there has been chemistry education in one form or another as long as there has been chemistry” (5). Juan de Dios Cespedes, a disciple of prominent researcher A. W. Hoffmann (University of Berlin), served as professor at the first higher education institution in Costa Rica, the University of Santo Tomás, founded in 1843 (6). Thus, it is very likely chemistry was somehow part of the university course catalogue in Costa Rica in the 19th Century. Nonetheless, teaching of chemistry as a major subject area of study began formally in 1950 with the launch at the University of Costa Rica of the first program in the country leading to a degree in chemistry (6). However, this fact is in conflict with the historical account Gómez-Ibañez (7) presented in the Journal of Chemical Education in 1964. Gómez-Ibañez situated the first consolidated college chemistry department to offer a degree in chemistry in Latin America at the University of Concepción, Chile, in 1960. Dispute aside, it was around this time that higher education institutions in Latin America succeeded in building the academic identity of the chemistry major. The antecedents varied by country. In the case of Costa Rica, this was preceded by a degree awarded since 1941 in “physical and chemical sciences” which enabled graduates to teach physical sciences and to receive further training, typically in state-run facilities, to perform laboratory work. Consolidation of the chemistry major was propelled by a cohort of professors who returned to the country in the 1940s upon completing advanced chemistry studies in prestigious institutions abroad. Incidentally, this trend, a significant majority of chemistry faculty undergoing extensive advanced training abroad, mostly in North America and Europe, continues to date. Currently, 74% of the faculty—which is 86% Costa Rican—received their graduate degree abroad, Table 2. Interestingly, a somehow inverse phenomenon occurs in the US: the percentage of chemistry faculty born abroad, and with no personal experience in the undergraduate US college system but with graduate training in the US, is on the rise. A decade ago, foreign-born faculty made up 21% of all US university positions in science and engineering departments (8), while a 2013 study reported 38% of the chemistry faculty in the State of Florida were foreign-educated (9). This faculty mobility and its influence on teaching and learning may pose an interesting topic of exploration that remains understudied. Table 2 contains demographics for tenured professors at the UCR. It evinces a gender gap in hiring which sadly has widened over the past decade and, as is the worldwide case, does not match the gender distribution at the undergraduate level. Teaching staff (adjunct, 9-month appointment, and permanent or continuous 12-month appointment) makes up as significant portion of the faculty. Overall, teaching staff workload is 0.77 that of tenured faculty; however, this includes academic engagements other than teaching in which non-tenured faculty may also engage. 12 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Table 2. Demographics for tenured chemistry faculty (35 total) at the University of Costa Rica Gender count (%) Female: 13 (37) Male: 22 (63) Nationality count (%) Costa Rican: 31 (86) Other: 4 (14) Age range count (%) 30-39: 4 (11) 40-49: 9 (26) 50-59: 16 (46) 60-69: 4 (11) >70: 2 (6) Highest degree count (%) PhD: 25 (71) MSc: 9 (26) Other: 1 (3) Country of graduate studies count (%) Costa Rica: 9 (26)a Germany: 7 (20) Spain: 6 (17) USA: 6 (17) Canada: 3 (8.6) Belgium: 1 (2.8) France: 1 (2.8) Taiwan: 1 (2.8) UK: 1 (2.8) a
All but one of these degrees are MSc.
The relatively recent advent of chemistry education in Costa Rica and the training of most of its faculty in foreign educational systems, explain the considerable impact of external influences on the development of the field. Take for example the prevalent, if not exclusive, use of US textbooks in college chemistry courses (translated into Spanish as well as the original English editions). It is also natural in and of itself for chemical education that has developed more recently to build on the experiences of those countries with longer trajectories. The University of Costa Rica is a large research institution serving a total enrollment of more than 40,000 undergraduates and more than 3,700 graduate students. It has its roots in the University of Santo Tomás (1843) and was founded under its current name in 1940. Its academic offer includes 261 undergraduate programs and 284 graduate and specialization programs. It is top ranked amongst Latin American universities and is responsible for 50% of the scientific and academic research produced in the seven Central American countries with a combined population of approximately 47 million (10). The UCR is a selective admission institution where applicants must compete with a combination of their secondary education grades and their performance on an aptitude entrance examination. Additionally, admission to a major is competitive and based on academic performance and, in many cases, further assessment of specific skills related to the major. Annual enrolment of new students in the undergraduate chemistry program averaged 96 over the past decade while the average number of graduates in the same period of time was 30. Chemistry was not the top choice major for a considerable number of those entering students who used it as a transient major while they satisfied the requirements for their first choice major. This explains a significant portion of the apparent mortality. It is noteworthy that since its inception, the program in chemistry at the University of Costa Rica was oriented to prepare individuals interested exclusively in the practice of chemistry. This is rather different from other countries where a proportion of students may use a chemistry degree as a steppingstone to enter professional school, especially in healthcare. Thus, since its early versions the 13 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
chemistry program intended to enable graduates to directly enter the workforce as practicing chemists or to continue advanced studies in the chemical sciences. Development of professional identity and scientist self-image has been strongly emphasized since the onset of the program. Currently, it is patent in the course syllabi and in the general discourse shared by faculty and students. Evidence to this is the fact that all chemistry courses on the BS program are exclusive for majors, starting off with the General Chemistry sequence for which there are separated majors-only and service courses. Since its first versions, the chemistry programs have included industrial chemistry along with the traditional sub-disciplines. Table 3 shows the BS program in Chemistry at the University of Costa Rica. The decade of 1970s saw the modernization, democratization, and expansion of higher education in Costa Rica (11). Three new public universities emerged in response to the social, economic, and technological development and demands of the population: the Technological Institute of Costa Rica (ITCR), the National University of Costa Rica (UNA), and the National Distance Education University, (UNED). To put the significance of this expansion in perspective, by the beginning of the 1970s, the population in the country was just approaching two million, about half of which was rural (12). The beginning of the 1980s brought the explosion of private higher education which to date amounts to 54 institutions attended by about half of the college students in the country (13). The current population in Costa Rica is 4.9 million, that is, about the same as the States of Oregon or South Carolina in the US, and just over half that of Austria, Switzerland, or New York City. Presently, the UNA and the ITCR house the only other two schools of chemistry in the country. The former offers a major in Industrial Chemistry and, in conjunction with other schools, majors in Industrial Bioprocesses Engineering and Secondary Science/Chemistry Education. The School of Chemistry at the ITCR awards solely a degree in Environmental Engineering. As is the case at the UCR, these two institutions have large service course programs in chemistry. The other two public universities, the UNED, and the recently founded National Technical University, UTN (2008), offer their chemistry service courses through their Natural Science Departments. No private institution awards a degree in Chemistry. However, several offer lower-level chemistry courses (e.g. General, Organic, and Food Chemistry). The University of Costa Rica offers an MS in Chemistry and graduates have the option of applying for a doctoral degree in Natural Sciences with a distinction in Chemistry. To date only one individual has opted for this doctorate and the trend continues to be pursuing advanced degrees in Chemistry abroad. The BS course of study at the UCR is accredited before the National Accreditation System of Higher Education, SINAES (sinaes.ac.cr). Additionally, a sector of the faculty is interested in gaining ACS accreditation in the future. An ACS International Student Chapter was founded in 2017.
14 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Table 3. BS course of study at the University of Costa Rica (course name (credits)) 1. Semester
2. Semester Humanities (6) Calculus 2 (4) Introduction to Chemistry 2 (3) Chemical Experimentation 2 (2) Linear Algebra (3)
Humanities (6) General Biology (3) General Biology Lab (1) Introduction to Chemistry 1 (3) Chemical Experimentation 1 (2) Chemical Profession (1) Pre-Calculus (0) Calculus 1 (3) Sports Activity (0) 3. Semester
4. Semester Organic Chemistry 1 (3) Organic Chemistry Lab (3) Inorganic Chemistry 1 (3) Inorganic Chemistry Lab 1 (2) Physics 2 (3) Physics 2 Lab (1) Humanities Elective (3)
Statistics & Chemistry (3) Analytical Chemistry 1 (3) Analytical Chemistry Lab (3) Physics 1 (3) Physics 1 Lab (1) Calculus 3 (4) Art Elective (2) 5. Semester
6. Semester Analytical Chemistry 2 (3) Analytical Chemistry 2 Lab (3) Physical Chemistry 1 (3) Physical Chemistry 1 Lab (3) Biochemistry (4) Seminar on National Reality 2 (2)
Organic Chemistry 2 (3) Organic Chemistry 2 Lab (3) Inorganic Chemistry 2 (3) Inorganic Chemistry 2 Lab (2) Physics 3 (3) Physics 3 Lab (1) Seminar on National Reality 1 (2) 7. Semester
8. Semester Management in the Chem. Industry (3) Industrial Processes Lab (3) Chemistry Internship (8)
Industrial Processes (3) Chemical Industry Field Visits (2) Physical Chemistry 2 (3) Physical Chemistry 2 Lab (3) Scientific Communication (2) Chemical Spectroscopy (4)
In some ways, the absence of a strong graduate program—which made of the undergraduate degree a terminal degree—resulted in very rigorous training in terms of depth and breadth. This trend persists where courses that may be offered as electives (or even at the graduate level) in other countries are mandatory for the BS at the University of Costa Rica. The minimum number of credit hours for graduation is 140, of which 16 correspond to other sciences, 14 to math, and 21 to humanities and general education. Chemistry courses amount to 88 credit hours: 51 in lecture courses, 29 in laboratories, and 8 for the mandatory internship. Interested readers can compare key features of this program (Table 3) with their institution’s or other institutions’ readily available online. It is our general impression, the BS at the UCR requires a greater number of total 15 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
credits and number of credits in chemistry courses than average programs in the US, where comparison is simple since both countries use the same credit hour system. Course load for the first seven semesters averages 18 credit hours. Students often engage in undergraduate research—which does not count towards graduation—undergraduate teaching assistantships, and leadership activities. This, added to the high credit semester demands, prompts students to delay graduation by a year or more.
Current Practice and Research in Chemical Education in Costa Rica Practice Teaching of college chemistry in Costa Rica follows, in general, traditional pedagogical approaches. Lecturing predominates in an environment that is instructor and content-centered. This should come as no surprise given that even where there is a long-standing tradition in chemical education, research “has far less impact on the development of theory, policy, or classroom practice, than the researchers in chemical education would wish (14).” A recent survey probing the utilization of educational literature suggests chemistry faculty at the University of Costa Rica are not exactly avid consumers of educational research (15). This preliminary evidence shows the only journal with which all faculty are acquainted is the Journal of Chemical Education. Respondents used this journal at least once over the 12-month period preceding the survey. Yet, when probed to rank sources of information guiding their teaching practices, personal experience and common sense came at the top of the list. Kempa (16) reported teachers in his study drew precisely on the same two sources of professional knowledge rather than relying on research literature. Although preliminary and warranting further analysis and interpretation, our results coincide with other reports (see for example, Gilbert (14) and Gabel (17)). Over the past decade, course management systems have been promoted heavily in Costa Rica; however, the extent of their implementation in chemistry classes remains disparate. By no means are student response systems (e.g. clickers) and other classroom engagement technology used widely in chemistry (though that is not necessarily the case for other sciences). Class attendance, in-class work, and assigned homework are largely deemed outside the realm of higher education. The instruction operates under the assumption there should be no further incentives to engage college students in these sort of actions. Tacitly, the reasoning is that college students who cannot get themselves to class, pay attention, and practice of their own volition, should probably not be in college to start with. Thus, excluding practical courses, the evaluation of college chemistry courses does not contemplate credit for such aspects. Course performance is assessed through in-term exams and, in some courses, a final. Grading scale runs from 0.0 to 10.0 with a passing grade (upon rounding) of 7.0. General, Organic and Analytical lecture courses are large-enrolment (~100) which has essentially thwarted attempts of collaborative learning. Regular courses meet twice a week for 100 minutes each time whereas intensive courses meet three 16 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
times a week for a total instruction time of 300 minutes. Regular semesters follow a 16-week schedule. There is access to a “study room” held once a week and open simultaneously to students in all first year science courses. Here they can meet with peers to work together and there are undergraduate science tutors available to answer questions. There are no activities structured at any level, thus this should not be confused with other formal pedagogical approaches such as peer-led instruction. Recitation or other types of supplemental instruction are not used. Independent and autonomous learning is an expectation at college level in Costa Rica even if its development is not supported. Understandably, this sink or swim approach exerts additional pressure on students’ already complex first-year college experience. Low passing rate is common for college science and math courses at public universities in Costa Rica. Table 4 shows the passing rate for chemistry service lecture courses at the UCR over three academic years. Percentages are calculated based on enrolment minus withdrawals. Course withdrawals close by the fourth week of each regular semester.
Table 4. Passing rate (%) for chemistry service courses at the UCR Term
Course 2015
2016
2017
I
II
I
II
I
II
General Chem. 1
60
40
70
33
61
44
General Chem. 2
42
61
37
64
54
72
Intensive Gen. Chem.
64
42
58
41
61
49
Analytical Chem. 1
66
57
61
56
67
62
Organic Chem. 1
51
51
48
39
54
43
Organic Chem. 2
64
45
55
69
52
58
Intensive Org. Chem.
48
58
59
59
51
55
Passing rates in Table 4 range between 33% and 72%, with two thirds of the averages below 60%. To a great extent, low passing rates are widely associated with the inherent nature and rigor of the subject and accepted as a fact of life. Proof to this is the consistent rating of most chemistry instructors as excellent in institutional student evaluations of instruction; nonetheless, evaluation results may be skewed by significant course desertion. The passing rate of a course (or section of a course) must fall below 40% to raise any concerns. Below this threshold, the course (or course section) is considered “non-ponderable” meaning it shall not be used to calculate students’ weighted grade average. It is only then expected of the department to implement a plan of action to avoid recurrence of the situation. Interestingly, the perceived connection between “high level of performance (sometimes at the expense of a wastefully high student “mortality” 17 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
during the first year)” is neither new nor atypical of universities in Latin American countries (7). Current laboratory instruction is verification-based with a strict focus on mastering of experimental techniques, though there is an incipient push for change. Undergraduate teaching assistants, UTAs, who are in charge of most of the grading (quizzes, lab notebook, and reports) and in-lab supervision, facilitate practicals. However, the presence of an instructor of record in the lab at all times during the practicals is mandatory and strictly observed. General Chemistry Laboratory sessions are capped at 24 students. Although this is set to change, prelab discussions for General Chemistry (50 min) are led by the UTA. In the case of Organic and Analytical Chemistry, these discussions occur simultaneously for multiple sections at a time different from the practical schedule and are held by a faculty member. Reform has infused debate for much of college chemistry education history. In 1929, Havighurst (18) objected the emphasis on a curriculum and instructional approach that perpetuated students’ “intellectual inertia”. Although his article focused on curriculum, his stance alluded to the necessary revision of teleology and pedagogical approaches in chemistry education. Such calls for reform continue and have strengthened over recent decades (19, 20). The conversation around STEM education in Costa Rica has not been void of its own calls for reform. The Report on the State of Education (a quinquennial study commissioned by the National Council of Rectors of the public university system) has described the need to “produce generalized changes to the educational practices developed in the classrooms” as fundamental to achieve effective improvements to education (13). Amongst some significant broad scope actions in the country is the STEMCR Program led by LASPAU (www.laspau.harvard.edu) in conjunction with the National Accreditation System of Higher Education, SINAES (sinaes.ac.cr). This initiative responds to a call to further professional development of college STEM faculty in the country. Its ambitious goal is to train 100 STEM faculty from public and private institutions on the implementation of innovative strategies to promote active learning. Nevertheless, it would be ingenuous to believe concerns with chemical education and interest in improvements are only recent. Panel sessions on chemical education at the Tenth Latin American Chemistry Congress held at the University of Costa Rica in 1969 were reported to have “attracted larger audiences (by a large margin) than most of the technical sessions” (21). Over the years, the University of Costa Rica has maintained institutional initiatives to advance faculty teaching training and facilitate the insertion of technology and innovative instructional strategies. As expected of any modern large research university, the UCR has dedicated institutional units in charge of providing resources to support instructional personnel. This includes events such as workshops, on-demand professional development for academic units, ICT training, and regular semester courses on teaching and learning exclusive for faculty. There is no teaching certificate, as is the case of many other universities, but faculty may choose to complete a three-semester graduate program leading to a Licentiature in University Education. 18 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Research A series of events in the first half of the 1990s cemented chemical education research in the US. Highlights of those events are the consolidation of the first chemical education doctoral programs within Departments of Chemistry in the US, the ACS symposium “What is Chemistry Education Research” (22), and the report by the Task Force on Chemical Education Research (23). In 1994, Metz (22) defined chemistry education research as “the systematic and objective search for answers to meaningful questions about the teaching and learning of chemistry.” In differentiating it from the practice of chemical education, more recently Taber (5) noted research “requires an engagement with the current state of knowledge, shared concepts and accepted methodologies in the field.” The distinction between chemical education and chemical education research as a scholarly field developed organically in some countries. This is not the case in Costa Rica, and most probably neither in other countries where the introduction of chemical education in general occurred later in time but at a faster pace. Current chemical education in Costa Rica can be described as mostly centered on scholarship of teaching and learning with only an incipient research component. At this point, it may be fair to ponder what benefits could entail developing chemical education research in countries that lag behind in the field. Sheer power of numbers may make an obvious argument: the more individuals engaged in research, the more the field will advance, at least in principle. Arguments of equity or inclusion and social justice may not be as immediately clear in the international landscape as they are within national borders, though for sure they are applicable. We echo Medina and Diver’s in reckoning diversity as inherently relevant for the construction of knowledge and for the enterprise of science (24). We maintain common rationales, such as this one, amplify their strength and impact at the international level simply because entire systems are diverse and not only groups of individuals within a context. To exemplify this, let us think of an international scholar doing research work in the US. Her worldviews certainly will contribute diversity to her team’s work; nonetheless, as diverse as her perspectives may be, her experience is lodged in a common context. There is good reason to believe the research experience of that same scholar in her native environment might inform her work in different ways. Chemical education research carried out from international or multi-national platforms (and not just by diverse individuals) affords a unique set of lenses to examine the teaching and learning of chemistry. In the introduction, we cautioned against the oversimplistic understanding of chemistry as a common language that could foster the false impression the practice and learning of chemistry is somehow universal. Work by Bang, Medin and Atran (25) in the interface of cognitive psychology and anthropology suggests there is an intricate interaction between what people think and how they think, that is, between cultural processes and cognitive processes. Thus, it follows the way in which individuals learn science is influenced by their experiences with the surroundings. This proposal underscores the compelling case for enriching findings through diversity not only at the person level but at the context level, too. At the same time, it cautions too against quick claims of generalizability and 19 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
transferability, especially given convenience sampling is predominant in chemical education research and replication studies are not common. We noted above that despite available research and enhanced understanding of teaching and learning of chemistry, and calls for reform from policy makers, practice of chemical education at tertiary level has evolved only modestly (20). Many factors contribute to the slow adoption of findings from educational research. Seethaler (26) poses, for instance, that lack of the necessary science education background prevents instructors from adequately implementing curricular or pedagogical reforms derived from research findings. In our view, a significant factor at the international level is the lack of context-relevant research findings. If reforms or innovations stem from research carried out in contexts far removed from theirs, international practitioners will be less likely to advance reforms or innovations. The above arguments strongly support the notion that nurturing chemical education research internationally will further the advancement of the field and beget global benefits. Since the turn of the century, authors with UCR affiliation have contributed nine papers in chemistry/science education journals or books. From them three are teaching activities or approaches (27–29), one is an academic laboratory experiment (30), and five are research-based (31–35). The first three research papers fall within McIntyre’s second type of educational research: “Evaluation of existing policies or practices intended to inform subsequent decisions and actions” (14). This set of papers makes a methodological proposal to study learning in the college laboratory utilizing a phenomenological approach. Through phenomenological reduction, the authors investigated the lived experience of participants who underwent change (reform) of the learning environment to which they were exposed in the General Chemistry laboratory sequence. Although the authors do not endorse a specific instructional style, their research suggests instructional practices that align with very distinct goals, thus intending to inform instructors’ decision-making process when designing learning experiences. As corollary, the authors put forth the use of Mindfulness Theory (36) to continue the investigation of laboratory learning environments. The latter two articles fall within McIntyre’s research Type 5: “Research aimed at generating new knowledge, the impact of which on practice is uncertain, diffuse, or long-term”. These two papers are product of a collaborative, cultural-comparison study between a university in Costa Rica and one in the US. The intention of the research was to empirically validate a hypothetical learning progression of chemical identity. Amongst other things, the authors concluded reasoning applied to chemical identity by participants in both institutions was very similar, thus contributing validity evidence for the learning progression. Where there were reasoning differences, they were attributed to influences of curriculum, social and cultural characteristics of the student population, and aspects related to the economic reality for each institution. A much older contribution by a Costa Rican that warrants recognition is the arrangement of the elements in an alternative Periodic Table proposed by Chaverri(37) in 1953. This work, which has sadly gone mostly unexamined, is particularly notable since it originated from a primarily agrarian society, a decade 20 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
before the industrialization of the economy started, and in a country that had not even graduated its first generation of chemists. Examples of Ongoing Research Over the past five years chemistry faculty at the University of Costa Rica have designed and advanced projects that fulfill the characteristics currently considered fundamental for chemical education research (23). Following we introduce the basics of two current projects which exemplify the nature of such efforts.
Student Perception of In-Class, Interactive Strategies To Promote Attention, Interest, and Generation of Explanations in Large-Enrollment Chemistry Courses As seen previously, evolution of practice of chemical education at tertiary level has not kept with advancement of educational research (20). We believe this misalignment is even more accentuated in countries where there is no solid tradition of chemical education research. Some preconceptions turned into obstacles in such environments may be that reform (a) requires insurmountable resources, (b) must completely eradicate current models of instruction, (c) works only in institutions with certain characteristics associated with financial resources and instructor skills, and (d) works only with students of certain characteristics (cognitive and attitudinal). To some extent, these preconceptions are unintendedly fostered by the fact chemical education research typically originates from institutions to which most instructors will generally have difficulty relating. Even more so for instructors in developing countries. Thus, we make a case for original and replication research in truly diverse environments, specifically, diverse countries and educational systems. With this in mind, a team at the University of Costa Rica has developed simpler, more adaptable, and less demanding approaches to reform that may serve as steppingstone in procuring greater reform goals. This work explores student perception of the effectiveness of simple, easy to implement interactive strategies embedded in traditional lectures to develop interest in the subject, support student attention, and promote student-generated explanations. The research uses a control-treatment design with matched instructors in a large enrollment General Chemistry course. In addition to the pilot trial, the study has gathered data using mixed-methods (Likert scales and open questions) over the course of three semesters to furnish replication evidence. Findings from learning sciences, cognitive sciences and educational psychology clearly suggest individuals are likely to learn more in environments that promote interactions with others than learning alone (38). Likewise, chemical education literature has arrived at the consensus “active learning” in its many expressions (e.g. peer instruction, small group work) enhances the learning experience compared to traditional approaches (26) and produces higher learning outcomes (39). Thus our interest in approaching reform from this perspective. For the design of its activities, this study used the ICAP theoretical framework put forth by Chi (40) and that we has been applied to chemical education in prior work (41–43). In this framework, an interactive activity is one that prompts dialogue 21 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
with a peer, expert, or intelligent system so that all participants make substantive contributions and no contribution is ignored (42). The activities varied in nature and extension so that they allowed embedding in lecture as the instructor saw it fits. Activities occurred during all lectures in the semester, their implementation did not require any especial arrangement (facilities or equipment). The breadth and depth of topics covered were the same as in other sections of the course and the same syllabus and class schedule were maintained. No credit was assigned to the activities and attendance to class was not mandatory (as is the case for all sections of the course). Statistical analysis and interpretation of surveys, and inductive reduction analysis and interpretation of textual data are convergent. Both sources of evidence support the emergence of a difference between the treatment and control conditions in terms of their perception of the activities’ influence on attention, interest, participation, and generation of explanations. The evidence strongly supports research literature: the treatment group’s perception is their attention, interest, and participation were supported by the implementation of the interactive activities. Furthermore, their perception was these activities impacted their learning positively. Additionally, passing rate and student retention were higher for the treatment group. Nonetheless, we prefer not to make associations between these results and the intervention given the myriad of confounding factors affecting these outcomes (for instance, exams are not rigorously validated, like is the case in most universities, thus we are skeptical to make claims based on their use even if they support our findings). We support a more fundamental interpretation. Learning theories across the board maintain student spontaneous engagement in the learning experience is essential for learning to take place. Attention, interest, and participation (through, for example, generation of explanations) are instantiations of engagement. Thus, we reckon that by promoting this behavior these activities improve chances for quality learning.
Web 2.0 Tools Impact on the Teaching-Learning Process of Basic Concepts in College Organic Chemistry in Large Enrolment Courses The emergence of information and communication technologies (ICT) has produced a conspicuous change in daily life. For people immersed in technologies nowadays, a world without them has become unimaginable. Although presence of ICT in human development can have a positive or negative impact, in education they afford the possibility to reach an increased number of participants and enhance opportunities for development. The term ICT comprises several techniques in a cluster, among the most representative are communication networks such as Internet, which has evolved rapidly. Some authors describe its evolution stages as Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, and even Web 4.0 (44, 45). Web 1.0 includes all the tools to disseminate information in one direction so it is a passive means through which people just seek information but do no create it (46). On the other hand, Web 2.0 refers to diverse techniques, services, and tools that enable participants to collaborate in the generation of knowledge, creation of content, and sharing of information 22 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
online (47). Even though Web 2.0 applications were not specifically created for academic use, they are very popular in education (see, for example, the Top 200 Tools for Learning 2017). Additionally, young people utilize them in their spare time and have become rather proficient in their use. Web 2.0 tools offer new ways to support learning environments for students, and using tools that students find appealing may impact their learning. Insufficient motivation, lack of confidence, negative expectations, sense of anonymity in large groups, and other factors detrimental to the teaching-learning experience may be overcome by improved peer-to-peer and student-to-instructor interactions through ICT. This interaction may encourage cooperation among undergraduates and promote active learning. This study recruited participants enrolled in six sections of two courses, Intensive Organic Chemistry and General Organic Chemistry. The average section size was 90 students. All sections experienced the standard lecture environment; however, three of them also utilized a blog and videos related to key concepts of organic chemistry. Students contributed actively to the blog, sharing examples and asking questions, and received feedback from other students and from the researcher in charge of the blog. The blog was active for five weeks, until the time of the examination that assessed the corresponding contents. The participants in the study completed various instruments for research data gathering. The evidence collected suggests students consistently hold the perception the Web 2.0 tools introduced to supplement instruction assisted their learning and preparation for the examinations. Likewise, instructors assigned to the treatment sections acknowledged the Web 2.0 tools supported the educational process. Besides, findings suggest the blog and videos had a positive impact on students’ academic performance.
Final Remarks Effective communication amongst chemistry researchers and chemistry educators from different countries, and national, cultural and ethnical backgrounds requires more than the common language of chemistry. A better understanding of the multiple realities (e.g. contexts, interests, expectations, resources and limitations) where chemistry and chemistry education are practiced is indispensable for interested parties to collaboratively attain substantive dialogue. The participation of emerging economies and developing countries in the leading chemical education journals is only scant. Reflection on the possible causes is beyond the scope of this article. Although the state of the matter may pose a challenge for the international chemical education community, working on its solutions may bring an opportunity to advance towards a truly global chemical education agenda. Like in any other human endeavor, true functional diversity has the potential of enhancing outcomes. Chemical education and chemical education research are emergent fields of scholarly work in Costa Rica. The information in this chapter, though not exhaustive, affords the readers a chance to identify similarities and differences 23 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
with their realities and to broaden their perspective to be receptive to learn more about other countries. We have tried to introduce some provocative thoughts to encourage readers to question presuppositions about education in general, and chemical education in specific, in developing countries such as Costa Rica. Likewise, we hope this work contributes to dispel misconceptions when necessary (although we reckon the persistence of misconceptions even before solid opposing evidence). We remain enthusiastically open to further this discussion with colleagues from around the world through any means available and to establish fruitful collaborations.
References 1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Hill, J. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 87, 10–12. Parchmann, I. In Science Education Research and Practice in Asia; Chiu, M.-H., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp 319−322. Sözbilir, M.; Akilli, M.; Yasar, M. D.; Dede, H. In Science education research and practice in Asia; Chiu, M-H., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp 289−317. International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook. http:// www.imf.org/en/publications/weo (accessed January 20, 2018) Taber, K. S. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 6–8. Chaverri, G. Historia del desarrollo de la química en Costa Rica; Editorial; Universidad de Costa Rica: San Jose, Costa Rica, 1992. Gomez-Ibanez, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1964, 41, 586–590. Corley, E. A.; Sabharwal, M. Res. Higher Educ. 2007, 48, 909–940. Sandi-Urena, S.; Sestilio, M.; Gatlin, T.; Villalta-Cerdas, A. Participation of foreign-educated faculty in undergraduate chemistry education. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society. 2013, 245. Universidad de Costa Rica: Fact Sheet. http://www.oaice.ucr.ac.cr/archivos/ UCRfacteng.pdf (accessed January 20, 2018) Ruiz Zúñiga, A. La educación superior en Costa Rica: Tendencias y retos en un nuevo escenario histórico; Editorial; Universidad de Costa Rica: San Jose, Costa Rica, 2001. Rosero-Bixby, D. Población y Salud en Mesoamérica. 2016, 13, 237–311. Programa Estado de la Nación. Sexto informe estado de la educación; Servicios Gráficos, A. C.: San José, Costa Rica, 2017. Gilbert, J. K.; Justi, R.; Van Driel, J. H.; Onno, D.; Treagust, D. F. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2004, 5, 5–14. Sandi-Urena, S.; Romero, R.; Leitón Chacón, J. Utilization of Educational Literature by Chemistry Faculty at the University of Costa Rica, unpublished. Kempa, R. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2002, 3, 327–343. Gabel, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 548. Havighurst, R. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 1126–1128. Towns, M. H.; Kreke, K.; Fields, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 111. Henderson, C.; Beach, A.; Finkelstein, N. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 952–984. 24
Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
Brasted, R. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1969, 46, 251. Metz, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 180. Bunce, D.; Gabel, D.; Herron, J. D.; Jones, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 850. Medin, D. L.; Lee, C. D. APS Obs. 2012May/June, 1–5. Bang, M.; Medin, D. L.; Atran, S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104, 13868–13874. Seethaler, S. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 93, 9–12. Castellón, E. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 687–691. Perez, A. L.; Lamoureux, G. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 614. Perez, G.; Perez, A. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 910. González-Flores, D.; Montero, M. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1077–1081. Chopra, I.; O’Connor, J.; Pancho, R.; Chrzanowski, M.; Sandi-Urena, S. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 113–126. Sandi-Urena, S. Qui. Nova, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.21577/01004042.20170176. Sandi-Urena, S.; Chrzanowski, M. In Science Education Research and Practical Work; Eilks, I., Markic, S., Ralle, B., Eds; Shaker: Aachen, Germany, 2016; pp 181−192. Sevian, H.; Ngai, C.; Szteinberg, G.; Brenes, P.; Arce, H. Educ. Quim. 2015, 26, 13–20. Szteinberg, G.; Brenes, P.; Arce, H.; Sevian, H. Educ. Quim. 2015, 26, 100–116. Langer, E.; Moldoveanu, M. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 1–9. Chaverri, G. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1953, 30, 632. Michael, J. Adv. Phys. Educ. 2006, 30, 159–167. Rau, M. A.; Kennedy, K.; Oxtoby, L.; Bollom, M.; Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 1406–1414. Chi, M. T. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2009, 1, 73–105. Villalta-Cerdas, A.; Sandi-Urena, S. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 530–540. Villalta-Cerdas, A.; Sandi-Urena, S. Educ. Quim. 2016, 27, 115–125. Villalta-Cerdas, A.; Sandi-Urena, S. Educ. Quim. 2013, 24, 431–438. Kose, U. Int. J. Open Source Software Proc. 2015, 5, 55–75. Goodfellow, G. W.; Maino, D. M. Optometric Educ. 2010, 35, 62–63. Davis, C.; Goodman, H. Soc. Work Groups 2014, 37, 85–95. Grosseck, G. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2009, 1, 478–482.
25 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
