Chemical Education Today edited by
Norbert J. Pienta Department of Chemistry University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242-1294
Funding Innovation and Research in Chemical Education The sluggish recovery of the U.S. economy was on the minds of citizens when they voted in November 2010, and the theme continued in President Obama's State of the Union address (1). But I had reasons for some optimism, both derived from activities close to home. A colleague who has been on the job market for the last 2 years had far more academic opportunities to which he could apply this year than last. I didn't even mind writing the extra letters of recommendation. Although this is not based on a data-filled analysis, the expanding job market signaled that a collection of primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) were able to search for faculty and that this deserving individual would fulfill his career aspirations. The second event was a search for a faculty member in my own department with a specialty in chemical education research and scholarship. Hiring a colleague in one's own discipline is always a special event, particularly when the area is chemical education at a Ph.D.-granting institution. Among several topics covered in the January 2011 speech, President Obama called for a new effort for a decade-long recruitment of 100,000 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) teachers “with strong teaching skills and deep content knowledge” (1). Part of the multifaceted plan includes additional investment in research that will improve our understanding of how to best recruit, prepare, and retain the best STEM teachers. Of course, recruiting the teachers themselves was the major enterprise, although doing so by encouraging more of the nation's top STEM graduates to become teachers was particularly endearing to me. It wasn't the question of what would happen when this lofty goal and its $100 million price tag crossed paths with the budget-cutting U.S. Congress that has me concerned. It was thinking about my colleague going to the PUI and the new colleague coming to the University of Iowa. You might wonder what these two folks have in common, at least as it relates here. The common theme has to do with investment in chemical education and the potential impact on both research and practice. A popular source of funding for chemical education projects is the National Science Foundation's Division of Undergraduate Education (2). For example, the NSF DUE Program, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science (TUES), recently changed from the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program, funds curricular change, laboratory improvement, and the research studies that document or characterize improvements. The most recent change in names from CCLI to TUES is only part of a remarkable evolution in the last 20 years, something that I have participated in during the latter part of my career. In the early 1990s, the focus was on innovation; if I were funded to work on an idea, anyone seeking a grant subsequent to me would have had difficulty meeting the novelty criteria, even if they could do it better or extend my work. Fortunately (and following a progression I would describe as logical), the program evolved an “adopt and adapt” category. CCLI came next, in three levels (first called phase I-III and now Type I-III) that match the complexity of the proposed activities. These sequential changes make sense: they accommodate a breadth of ideas and activities, including the coexistence of chemical
_
education research and practice. The difficulty comes with the popularity of the program and the limited resources. Funding rates of 7-10% are going to limit innovation and change and our understanding of how it all works, based on the research studies. The story comes full circle, back to the two individuals described previously. Each of them in their own way contributes to better student learning and to the goal of recruiting some of those chemistry majors to be teachers. But there are some attendant pitfalls. Tenure and promotion for each of them is likely to depend on both the scholarship associated with publications and that associated with getting proposals funded. In many cases, those publications arise from the funded projects. The area of chemical education research is in a sensitive period, slowly gaining broader acceptance even at Ph.D.-granting institutions. Pretenure faculty members are at risk from too few funding sources and low proposal-acceptance rates that do not adequately support the growing area. It is not my intention to single out the NSF TUES program; it merely serves as an illustrative example. Nor am I trying to promote chemical education research over practice. My colleague moving to a PUI also needs the opportunity to access resources. In the recent atmosphere of budget cuts, this dilemma might cause one to become disheartened. But there are new perspectives and approaches that can be considered. For example, TUES funds the purchase of major laboratory instruments (like NMR); the NSF Division of Chemistry must be convinced to take greater responsibility for this aspect of undergraduate research and laboratory learning. They have a vested interest because these major instruments are used to train future graduate student researchers. Other disciplines such as engineering are already more heavily invested in this aspect of the infrastructure. As individuals, there are actions that we can take. I encourage you to campaign enthusiastically for continued support for disciplinary and education-based funding. Write or call your local member of Congress. I encourage those in academics to actively pursue your scholarship and continue to write inspired proposals. Program officers like to point out that high demand for resources in an area assures equitable distribution. Encourage chemistry and other science majors in college to consider a career as a teacher. Finally, I encourage you describe your innovations and research via submissions to this Journal. Norbert J. Pienta* Editor in Chief
Literature Cited 1. The text and video of President Obama's State of the Union address can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union2011 (accessed Feb 2011). 2. Programs supported by NSF-DUE can be found at http://www.nsf. gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE (accessed Feb 2011).
_
r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 88 No. 4 April 2011 10.1021/ed200077z Published on Web 02/16/2011
_
Journal of Chemical Education
365
