Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Moving from Recommendations to Innovations: Increasing the Relevancy and Effectiveness of Chemistry Education Mary K. Carroll* Department of Chemistry, Union College, Schenectady, New York 12308, United States ABSTRACT: The chemistry community should seize the opportunity posed by the 2009 report, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians, and the planned revisions to the Medical College Admissions Test to develop and implement curricular innovations that have potential benefit for students in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry courses. The process of envisioning, developing, and adopting curricular innovations, particularly those that are comprehensive, takes time. Educational innovations should be initiated with long-term goals in mind. Building on researchbased practices will streamline implementation and maximize initial impacts. Fostering the identification of learning outcomes and competencies, engaging in continuous assessment, and using evidence-based practices will have both short- and long-range results. We will be able to meet the current expectations of the medical community. Moreover, these strategies will position us to respond to future changes, with an eye to the overarching goal of increasing the relevancy and effectiveness of chemistry education. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Curriculum, Chemical Education Research, Biochemistry, Administrative Issues, General Public, Testing/Assessment
T
Box 1. Description of Competency E4, from Scientif ic Foundations for Future Physicians1
he 2009 report Scientif ic Foundations for Future Physicians (SFFP),1 prepared by a joint committee of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), has prompted many discussions2 and raised numerous questions regarding the planned revisions to the Medical College Admissions Test3 and potential changes in medical school admissions. Despite the uncertainty about what these changes will entail, the chemistry community should not wait to act. By responding proactively to the SFFP recommendations in ways that are synergistic with other higher education trends and informed by assessment and research, the effectiveness of chemistry education in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry for all students, including future physicians, can be enhanced. SFFP emphasized particular competencies that undergraduate students must demonstrate in order to be adequately prepared for medical school. These include knowledge and skills that prepare individuals for the study of medicine, as well as those that will be needed in the eventual practice of medicine. SFFP defined eight competencies (see, for example, Competency E4 in Box 1), with associated learning objectives, for premedical science education and noted:1 [The recommended] focus on competencies, rather than courses, for admission to medical school will require a new approach to assessment, uncoupling specified prerequisite courses from the desired outcomes of premedical education. At present, most medical schools require entering students to have taken two terms of general chemistry and two terms of organic chemistry, with some schools moving toward requiring a term of biochemistry. Certainly, traditional courses in introductory, organic, and biochemistry could be used to meet many of the SFFP competencies. It is not yet clear whether medical © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Competency E4: Demonstrate knowledge of basic principles of chemistry and some of their applications to the understanding of living systems. Learning Objectives: • Demonstrate knowledge of atomic structure. • Demonstrate knowledge of molecular structure. • Demonstrate knowledge of molecular interactions. • Demonstrate knowledge of thermodynamic criteria for spontaneity of physical processes and chemical reactions and the relationship of thermodynamics to chemical equilibrium. • Demonstrate knowledge of principles of chemical reactivity to explain chemical kinetics and derive possible reaction mechanisms. • Demonstrate knowledge of the chemistry of carbon-containing compounds relevant to their behavior in an aqueous environment. schools will change their entrance requirements in response to SFFP, and what the resulting impact on chemistry departments might be. This poses a tremendous opportunity for the chemistry community. Rather than wait to see what medical schools will do, and then respond, we can and should take the lead in initiating and expanding educational innovations in the chemistry courses Published: July 9, 2013 816
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3008796 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 816−819
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
discussions about the competencies and learning outcomes that all chemistry students should demonstrate. These discussions about what to cover should also consider how to align key concepts and content, what instructional approaches to use, and how to assess student accomplishments.4 A number of different curricular frameworks have been developed to meet the various educational goals of chemistry students in ways that are consistent with institutional mission and resources.7,8 When considering how the chemistry community might respond to the SFFP recommendations, the American Chemical Society (ACS) Task Force on Scientif ic Foundations for Future Physicians, composed of members of the ACS Committee on Professional Training and the Society Committee on Education, is not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach.8 Assessment of and research on a variety of different curricular frameworks will benefit the chemistry community in the long run. Just as curricular frameworks will vary among institutions, so will the instructional approaches. Recent reports highlight the need for them to be evidence-based.4,9 Implementation strategies will also vary. As SFFP noted:1 Just as there is no single approach to curriculum change, every institution must consider the environment, culture, and desired outcomes of its educational program when considering what changes to make.
in which premedical students enroll. The conversations initiated by SFFP are part of a much broader dialogue about undergraduate science education at departmental, institutional, and national levels. We should consider SFFP in conjunction with other reports, including the 2012 National Research Council report Discipline-Based Education Research.4 Considering what is taught, the way in which it is taught and assessed, and how best to involve those who will implement and sustain educational innovations is critically important to increasing the relevance and effectiveness of chemistry education for all students, including those with medical school ambitions.
■
MOVING BEYOND PREMEDICAL STUDENTS Premedical students are among a larger group of undergraduate chemistry students, many of whom have interests in the life sciences and some of whom may pursue chemistry-related degrees. Although focused on premedical and medical education, SFFP envisioned its report and recommendations to be considered in the broader context, noting “innovative curricula may help not only premedical candidates, but also students across the whole span of the sciences”.1 Educational innovations will vary in size and scope, and this is fully appropriate. Some departments will focus on individual courses. More comprehensive initiatives will span chemistry curricula and perhaps bridge to curricula in other disciplines. Institutions with larger enrollments and more resources may offer specialized courses and curricula for those students with life science and health professions interests. Regardless of their goals, students will benefit from innovations that promote conceptual thinking and improve their ability to problem-solve and use representations (models, graphs, etc.).4 When developing innovations, the different backgrounds and educational pathways of chemistry students will also need to be considered:4 Colleges and universities also face the challenge of serving an increasingly socially, economically, and ethnically diverse undergraduate population entering college classrooms directly from high school, after a military career or other life experiences, or from postsecondary educational experiences at another institution. Sustained attention to motivating, engaging and supporting the learning of all students who enter college science and engineering classrooms is an imperative. Crosscutting strategies could help diversify the field of medicine as well as other STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Many institutions are using high-impact educational practices, approaches to teaching and learning that increase rates of persistence and engagement for students from many backgrounds.5 Examples include: first-year seminars and experiences; common intellectual pursuits (often thematic, with curricular and co-curricular options); learning communities; collaborative assignments and projects; and service learning. Departments can leverage their efforts to educate and assess students by aligning them with other similar practices used across campus and at partnering institutions, including two-year colleges.
■
MOVING BEYOND THE CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
Chemistry-based educational researchers can share evidence related to the educational innovations we consider, and help frame and conduct assessments of the innovations we implement. Given the range of educational goals of chemistry students, and the pathways they follow, input from colleagues in other departments and at other institutions is needed. Broader participation and increased resources will maximize the effectiveness of educational innovations over the near- and long-term. Baccalaureate institutions should involve in new curricular initiatives their colleagues from two-year colleges with which the institution has articulation agreements.10 This is particularly important when changes in content or delivery are being considered for the courses traditionally taught in the first two years of college: general chemistry and organic chemistry. Colleagues in other disciplines can also inform and contribute to our efforts. The chemistry community could consider an agenda similar to that envisioned for undergraduate biology education in the 21st century:11 • Integrate core concepts and competencies throughout the curriculum • Focus on student-centered learning • Promote a campus-wide commitment to change • Engage the community in the implementation of change Recommendations, references, and examples from Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action11 can be used in conjunction with SFFP to renew discussions about educational innovations in chemistry. Colleagues with expertise in cognitive science, educational psychology, social psychology, organizational change, education, science education, and psychometrics can provide perspectives and strategies.4 Institutional research offices can provide data to make a case for implementing educational innovations and assist with assessment of those changes.
■
MOVING BEYOND CONTENT Content, instructional approaches, and implementation strategies are all integral components of efforts to enhance science and engineering education.4 The recommendations from SFFP and a companion report, Behavioral and Social Science Foundations for Future Physicians,6 can serve as a starting point for renewed 817
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3008796 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 816−819
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Commentary
SUSTAINING INNOVATION Educational innovations should be initiated with long-term goals in mind. Building on research-based practices will streamline implementation and maximize initial impacts. It is extremely important to engage with those faculty and instructional staff whose teaching will be impacted by comprehensive innovations that involve changing structures and policies.12 Making a series of changes that involve the following will increase the likelihood that innovations are sustained:4,13 • Department • Institutional priorities and reward systems • Students • Faculty members’ beliefs To be successful, such multifaceted efforts require a shared vision, communication, and coordination. This takes time and dialogue to develop:4 Because departmental and institutional norms and cultures reflect shared values and beliefsincluding beliefs about teaching and learninggaining understanding of departmental and institutional norms and cultures is an essential step in designing efforts to enact new policies supporting educational innovation.
Box 2. Selected Questions To Consider, from Scientif ic Foundations for Future Physicians1 • What are the opportunities and challenges in implementing a competency-based curriculum approach? • What role can faculty play in advancing curricular change? • How long will it take to implement changes in the curriculum to reflect desired competencies? • Are there resources that can be developed to help institutions with limited resources work toward a competency based curricular approach? • How will student achievement of the competencies be assessed? • How will these competencies evolve as knowledge expands? The chemistry community should seize the opportunity posed by SFFP to develop and implement curricular innovations that have potential benefit for students in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry courses. Fostering the identification of learning outcomes and competencies, engaging in continuous assessment, and using evidence-based practices will have both short- and long-range results. We will be able to meet the current expectations of the medical community. Moreover, these strategies will position us to respond to future changes, with an eye to the overarching goal of increasing the relevancy and effectiveness of chemistry education.
■
EMPOWERING FACULTY To implement effective innovations, faculty members need training in evidence-based methods and access to materials that apply these methods. Engage To Excel, a report to the U.S. President by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, noted:9 A significant barrier to broad implementation of evidencebased teaching approaches is that most faculty lack experience using these methods and are unfamiliar with the vast body of research indicating their impact on learning. A recent National Academies report recommended that:4 [C]urrent faculty adopt evidence-based teaching practices to improve learning outcomes for undergraduate science and engineering students, with support from institutions, disciplinary departments, and professional societies. Knowledge of change models12 and leadership skills is also needed to frame and implement educational innovations. We can take advantage of the opportunities posed by participating actively in professional societies. For example, the ACS has a suite of ACS Leadership Courses14 such as Leading Change, and Engaging Colleagues in Dialogue, and volunteer opportunities15 that provide strategies and help develop such skills.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest. The author served as Chair of the American Chemical Society Committee on Education, 2010−2012.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to J. Wesemann for assistance with review of the literature, and to J. I. Shulman for his helpful comments. REFERENCES
(1) Association of American Medical Colleges, Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians; Association of American Medical Colleges: Washington, DC, 2009. http://www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report.pdf (accessed May 2013). (2) Arnaud, C. H. Revisiting the Premed Curriculum. Chem. Eng. News 2009, 87, 35−38. (3) Association of American Medical Colleges MCAT2015 Page. http://www.aamc.org/mcat2015 (accessed May 2013). (4) National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A., Eds.; Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. (5) Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington DC, 2008. http:// www.neasc.org/downloads/aacu_high_impact_2008_final.pdf (accessed May 2013).
■
TAKING ACTION The process of envisioning, developing, and adopting curricular innovations, particularly those that are comprehensive, takes time. It begins with dialogue, discussing questions such as those presented in SFFP (Box 2). As scientists, we understand the need to be well versed in the relevant literature and build upon the experiences of others when designing and carrying out a new experiment. In initiating curricular innovations in chemistry, we must consider how to adapt the available evidence-based research in science education to meet the needs of the students taking chemistry courses at our institution. We must consider both what is taught and the way in which it is taught, and we must involve in curricular innovation those who will implement and sustain the changes. 818
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3008796 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 816−819
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
(6) Association of American Medical Colleges. Behavioral and Social Science Foundations for Future Physicians; Association of American Medical Colleges: Washington, DC, 2011. https://www.aamc.org/download/ 271020/data/behavioralandsocialsciencefoundationsforfuturephysicians.pdf (accessed May 2013). (7) Carroll, M. K.; Larive, C. K. Chemistry and the Premedical Curriculum. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89, 65. (8) Shulman, J. I. Chemistry and the Premedical Curriculum: Considering the Options. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90; DOI: 10.1021/ ed3008632. (9) Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Engage To Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; Washington, DC, February 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcastengage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf (accessed May 2013). (10) American Chemical Society. ACS Guidelines for Chemistry in Two-Year College Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2009. http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/education/policies/ twoyearcollege/CSTA_015380 (accessed May 2013). (11) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action; Brewer, C. A., Smith, D., Eds.; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 2011. (12) Henderson, C. Finkelstein, N.; Beach A. Beyond Dissemination in College Science Teaching: An Introduction to Four Core Change Strategies, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 2010, 39 (5), 18−25. (13) Austin, A. E. Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education. Commissioned Paper for the National Academies National Research Council, Board on Science Education, March 2011. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_ 071087#.UbtOlet1Gl0 (accessed May 2013). (14) ACS Leadership Development System Page. http://www.acs. org/leaderdevelopment (accessed May 2013). (15) ACS Get Involved, Stay Involved Web Page. http://www.acs. org/getinvolved (accessed May 2013).
819
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3008796 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 816−819
