Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Revision of the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs Anne B. McCoy*,† and Ron W. Darbeau‡ †
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States Department of Chemistry, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70609, United States
‡
ABSTRACT: The Committee on Professional Training (CPT) of the American Chemical Society (ACS) is revising the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs. It is expected that the revised version will be adopted in 2014. In this commentary, the history of the ACS Guidelines is summarized. Areas in which there are expected to be changes to the 2008 guidelines are highlighted. The committee is soliciting input from the community about these proposed changes and about the guidelines and the approval processes more generally. KEYWORDS: Curriculum, Professional Development, First-Year Undergraduate/General
T
students, a variety of infrastructure requirements must also be met. At the center of these requirements is a faculty that has the expertise needed to provide students with broad exposure across the chemistry discipline. An excellent program must provide a safe environment and be housed such that classrooms and laboratories have ample space and technology. The faculty must be provided with ample office space, technological resources, and for those who require it, appropriate laboratory space to pursue their individual research interests. An excellent program must also provide students and faculty with access to the chemical literature and maintain a suite of instrumentation for use by students and faculty in instructional and research activities. In addition to infrastructural mandates, the guidelines put forward a list of educational experiences that an ACS-certified chemistry major must be exposed to either through dedicated courses or integrated among several courses. The guidelines also describe a broad range of skills that these students develop throughout their undergraduate experiences. Over the seven decades since the first cohort of colleges and universities were approved, the discipline of chemistry has evolved considerably. In particular, the role of multidisciplinary activities within chemistry and among chemistry and other disciplines has become increasingly important. So, by the dawn of the 21st century, it became apparent that the operating model of the guidelines, in which the course work required for student certification was increasingly restrictive, was no longer a realistic approach if programs were expected to provide students seeking ACS-certified degrees with a reasonable path to graduation in four years. This realization resulted in the 2008 ACS Guidelines making a significant departure from earlier editions, especially in the curricular expectations.2 In addition, CPT recognized that programs needed to pay greater attention to the development of their students’ skills. This aspect of the students’ education received much greater emphasis in the 2008 ACS Guidelines than it had in earlier iterations. Specifically, the 2008 guidelines require students to take the equivalent of one-semester courses in each of the five subdisciplines of chemistry: analytical chemistry, biochemistry,
he Committee on Professional Training (CPT) is charged by the American Chemical Society (ACS) to develop and administer an approval program for bachelor’s degree programs in chemistry. The first chemistry departments were approved in 1940. Since then, the ACS approval program has promoted excellence in chemistry education by setting standards for program faculty, infrastructure, student preparation, and institutional support, and by requiring that all approved programs meet, at least, these standards. Presently, there are 668 approved chemistry programs, representing the broad range of colleges and universities found in the United States. They include chemistry programs with as few as four chemistry faculty members, along with large public Ph.D.-granting departments. It is critical that the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs continue to meet the challenges of educating versatile, competent chemistry professionals, in addition to providing an appropriate set of standards and goals for the diverse group of the approved programs. To this end, from time to time the Committee revises the guidelines. The ACS Guidelines that are currently in place were adopted by CPT in 2008.1 In January 2012, CPT began the process of developing a revised version of the guidelines. We anticipate these guidelines will be released in 2014. The purpose of this commentary is to share some of the committee’s thoughts on the directions these revisions will take, and to request feedback from stakeholders across the broad chemistry enterprise.
■
THE ACS GUIDELINES AND THE 2008 REVISION Since their inception, a goal of the ACS Guidelines and the ACS Approval Program has been to provide a mechanism for ensuring that professional chemists receive the training and experiences that will provide the necessary background for a long and productive career. As the guidelines have evolved, a second aspect of the approval program has been in providing chemistry programs the means to ensure that they have all of the resources necessary to provide an excellent and rigorous education for their graduates. When thinking about the ingredients for a rigorous program, it is often easiest to focus on specific courses that are offered and the skill base that students acquire. In order for a program to provide an excellent and rigorous chemistry experience to its © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: March 15, 2013 398
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400084v | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 398−400
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
• Boosting student skills by requiring information retrieval and management and leadership opportunities • Changing the requirements for access to and use of the chemical literature • Requiring student exposure to at least one instrument chosen from each grouping of optical atomic spectroscopy, optical molecular spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, chromatography/separations, and electrochemistry • Requiring that all students have ready access to FT− NMR capabilities either on-site or at proximal facilities • Requiring general and specific safety training and evaluation of such training • Requiring that chemistry programs have an active safety committee • Extending the regular schedule for submission of periodic reports to every six years instead of the current five-year cycle A more detailed description of the proposed changes can be found on the CPT Web page.4 Several proposed changes in requirements are described below.
inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry (ABIOP), along with four in-depth courses. The specific content of the in-depth courses is left to the discretion of the individual programs, allowing each program to provide the content that is consistent with the background and professional ambitions of the student population it serves. As an experimental science, an education in chemistry requires substantial laboratory experiences. In the 2008 ACS Guidelines, students are required to take at least 400 hours of laboratory after their general chemistry experiences. These labs must provide coverage of at least four of the five subdisciplines of chemistry. At the foundational level, students are exposed to basic skills and techniques, in-depth experiences that provide students with opportunities to learn more sophisticated techniques and to develop and practice a broad range of skills. Programs are encouraged to provide students with laboratory experiences that cross the boundaries among the ABIOP subdisciplines. Along with the increased flexibility of the curriculum, the 2008 ACS Guidelines ushered in a greater emphasis on student skill development. Skill areas that were specifically addressed include: problem-solving, chemical literature, laboratory safety, communication, team skills, and professional ethics. These guidelines also emphasized the importance of department self-evaluation.
Changes in the Size of the Faculty
Since 1983, an approved program has been required to have a minimum of four full-time faculty members in chemistry. The increasing breadth of chemistry, the demands on faculty to deliver an approved curriculum, and the importance of faculty professional development often represent significant challenges; this is especially true for small programs. In an effort to enable struggling, small programs to achieve and maintain the level of excellence expected of approved programs, CPT is exploring the possibility of increasing the minimum number of faculty from four to five. This change would apply to all programs seeking ACS approval. If this change is adopted, programs that are currently approved with four faculty members would be required to increase the number of faculty to five by 2025 in order to retain approved status.
■
REVISION TO THE ACS GUIDELINES FOR BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS In January 2012, CPT began the process of revising the guidelines.3 With the large changes in the curricular structure that were introduced in 2008, CPT does not plan to make significant changes to the curriculum section. Rather, this revision will focus on an increased emphasis on student skill development, clarification of some aspects of the 2008 ACS Guidelines, and reconsideration of the infrastructural requirements of an excellent program. A summary of the proposed changes is provided below: • Increasing the minimum number of faculty in approved programs from four to five • Increasing the flexibility for faculty contact hours, by allowing up to two faculty members to teach up to 18 weekly contact hours in a single quarter or semester so long as their contact hour, when averaged over the academic year, does not exceed 15 contact hours per week • Increasing the weekly contact hour limit from 15 to 18 per semester or quarter for individuals whose primary teaching responsibility is laboratory instruction • Requiring that lecture courses leading to certification be taught by full-time, permanent faculty • Requiring that students have significant hands-on laboratory experience prior to starting foundational laboratory courses • Allowing approved programs, in rare cases, to teach four, rather than five, foundation courses annually if some are taught on a regular biennial schedule that does not impede students’ graduation and completion of a certified degree in four years • Requiring that in-depth course offerings correspond to at least 12 semester or 18 quarter credit hours • Clarifying definitions of in-depth laboratory courses • Requiring a capstone experience (broadly defined) for certified majors
Student Skills
Expectations for development and assessment of student skills were introduced into the guidelines in 2008. As a new expectation for approval, programs were given some time to respond to this requirement, and the expectations remained modest in the beginning. In considering revisions to the 2008 ACS Guidelines, we expect to increase the emphasis on student skill development. For example, in the area of information retrieval, students must have the ability to efficiently and effectively retrieve information by searching the chemical literature and be able to assess the quality of the search outcomes. While students must have ready access to databases that allow them to complete these searches, the resources that would be used for this purpose are at the discretion of the individual programs. Capstone Experience
One of the proposed additions to the requirements for a certified major is the introduction of a capstone experience. With the introduction of student skills into the guidelines, CPT recognizes that it is important to provide students with opportunities to synthesize the knowledge and skills they have obtained throughout their chemistry education. Undergraduate research followed by the development of a comprehensive research report provides an excellent opportunity for such a capstone experience. Other mechanisms could include a capstone course or a substantive experience in an existing 399
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400084v | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 398−400
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
course or courses, as well as the opportunity for a mentored teaching experience, or a seminar course that emphasizes student skills. Online Courses and Distance Learning
An area in which postsecondary education has seen rapid evolution is in the technological developments that have made online instruction increasingly prevalent. This has also opened opportunities for remote instruction, yet both opportunities and challenges are associated with these developments. On one side, such courses can allow smaller institutions to share courses, expanding the curriculum at each institution and providing students with opportunities that would not be available locally. There are also significant challenges in delivering instruction in a discipline for which laboratory experiences play a central role. CPT is aware of these challenges and opportunities. We are continuing to explore how to address the question of online instruction in the ACS Guidelines. Additional information on this topic will be circulated later in 2013.
■
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CPT views the development and revision of the ACS Guidelines as a significant opportunity and responsibility. We are graciously aware that there are many parties interested in the spirit and the letter of the guidelines, including the readership of this Journal. We welcome feedback on the proposed revisions and on any aspect of the ACS Guidelines. Please send your comments to
[email protected]. There will also be opportunities for discussion of the guidelines and the proposed revisions at the national meetings of the American Chemical Society in 2013. We will begin the writing process shortly after the Fall 2013 ACS National Meeting. Comments received by August 2013 are certain to be considered in discussions and decisions on the direction taken by the guidelines.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. Anne B. McCoy and Ron W. Darbeau are, respectively, Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee on Professional Training.
■
REFERENCES
(1) American Chemical Society, Committee on Professional Training, Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry. ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (2) Polik, W. F.; Larive, C. K. New Guidelines Approved by CPT. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 484−487. (3) Larive, C. K.; McCoy, A. B. Comment column: Evolution of the ACS Guidelines for Undergraduate ProgramsWhat’s Next? Chem. Eng. News 2012, 90 (1), 29. (4) The document, “White Paper: Proposed Changes to the ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs ACS Committee on Professional Training Prepared January 2013”, is available online from the CPT home page on the ACS Web page: http://www.acs.org/cpt (accessed Mar 2013). This document may also be requested by sending an e-mail message to
[email protected].
400
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400084v | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 398−400
