Editorial pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Science Education for Global Sustainability: What Is Necessary for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Strategies? Uri Zoller* Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of HaifaOranim, Kiryat Tivon, 36006, Israel ABSTRACT: A sound, meaningful education in chemistry and science requires a revolutionized change in the guiding philosophy, rationale, and models of our thinking, behavior, and action. Chemistry and science literacy for sustainability means developing the capability of evaluative system thinking in the context of science, technology, environment, and society, which in turn requires the development of students’ higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS), system critical thinking, question-asking, decision-making, and problem solving. This should become the top priority goal of contemporary and future effective chemical education. Accordingly, meaningful chemistry and science education for sustainability is envisioned as a teaching approach that is interdisciplinary, and promotes critical system thinking, problem solving, and decision-making, with the ultimate goal of increasing students’ HOCS learning such that they can apply these skills and practices beyond the science disciplines to the complex problems and decisions that need to be addressed in society as a whole for global sustainability. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Curriculum, Environmental Chemistry, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Testing/Assessment, Learning Theories
T
hree editorials1−3 recently published in this Journal prompted this communication as a complementary editorial. In view of the unrealistic and unfulfillable expectations of people in our world of conflicting and competing values, interests, and finite and unevenly distributed resources, the environmental imperatives and the limited economical feasibility of several of even the most innovative, advanced technologies, the converging cry of all to “think globally and act locally” means to move us to a more sustainable world. Yet, although science and technology may be useful in establishing what can be done in these contexts, neither of them can tell us what should be done, particularly with respect to sustainable development, which is conceptualized differently by different people, groups, and societies.
Table 2. Recommended Paradigms Shifts in Science, Technology, Environmental, and STESa-Oriented Education To Foster Critical Thinking Skills and Sustainable Science Education and Environmental Approaches, Society and Educators Should Move From These Current, Maladaptive Paradigms Technological, economical, and social growth at any cost Corrective responses Reductionism; i.e., dealing with in vitro, isolated, highly controlled, decontextualized components Disciplinarity
■
Technological feasibility Algorithmic, LOCS-orientedb teaching Reductionist thinking Dealing with topics in isolation or closed systems Disciplinary teaching (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) Knowing and recognizing orientation in teaching (e.g., applying algorithms for solving exercises) Teacher-centered, authoritative, frontal instruction
SHIFTING PARADIGMS Given the evolving paradigm shifts listed in Table 1, corresponding paradigm shifts are unavoidable, particularly as Table 1. Sustainability Paradigm Shifts Underway From
To
Growth Correction Wants Gaps increase Passive overconsumption Options selection
Sustainable development Prevention Needs Gaps decrease Active participation Options generation
Problem solving-orientation, with decision making based on systemic, inter-, cross-, and transdisciplinary approaches Economic and social feasibility HOCS learningc in the STESa interfaces context System and lateral thinking Dealing with complex, open systems Interdisciplinary teaching Conceptual learning for problem solving and transfer
Student-centered, real-world, HOCSoriented learning
a
STES: Science, Technology, Environment, and Society. bLOCS: lower-order cognitive skills. cHOCS: higher-order cognitive skills.
A sound, meaningful education in chemistry and science, which would be responsive to and could play a leading role in the above processes, requires a revolutionized change in the guiding philosophy, rationale, and models of our thinking,
far as development, growth, rational consumption, and management of resourcesin addition to science, technology, environment, society (STES), as well as chemistry and science education and assessment4are concerned.5−7 The essence of these paradigm shifts especially relating to educators is presented in Table 2.8 © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
To These More Adaptive Paradigms Sustainable development in the global context Preventive actions Uncontrolled, in vivo, complex systems
Published: January 25, 2012 297
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300047v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 297−300
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
assignments in their hands and they study the relevant material before it is “covered” in the class, to which they bring their questions to be discussed. No specific course textbook(s) are assigned. Students are provided with a list from which they can choose text and reference books, for the study of any relevant topic, as they find appropriate for their needs.15 2. Homework assignments: mainly problems (not exercises) that require HOCS for their solution, to be worked out by the students (preferably in groups) and submitted, individually, for feedback and grading. 3. Students’ self-assessment: Students self-assess their home assignments, preguided by the course professor. The environment-related exam questions in Box 1 (Q1: 1.1− 1.5, midterm) and Box 2 (Q2: 2.1−2.5, final) were interwoven in tests for Chem One, a first-year course. These questions served for assessment and grading, as pretest and posttest, respectively, within a related research design.14 For operational definitions of LOCS- and HOCS-type questions, see refs 13 and 18.
behavior, and action. In this respect, chemistry and science literacy for sustainability means the capability of evaluative system thinking in the STES context. Therefore, the development of our students’ higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) system (lateral) critical thinking, question-asking, decisionmaking, and problem solving, in the context of the sciences, research and educationshould become the top priority goal of contemporary and future sound chemical education. Accordingly, meaningful chemistry and science education for sustainability is envisioned as a teaching approach that is interdisciplinary, and promotes critical system thinking, problem solving, and decision-making, with the ultimate goal of increasing HOCS learning. Students educated in such a way could develop the capacity of evaluative system thinking and transfer and apply these skills and practices beyond science disciplines’ specificities in the complex interwoven STES systems context.8−12 It appears that the essence of the current reform in science and chemical education, worldwide, is, indeed, a gradual shift from algorithmic and imparting knowledge-type teaching to HOCS learning. In the context of chemical education for sustainability, the ultimate goal is STES-literate graduates, capable of evaluative thinking, decision making, and problem solving for taking responsible action. Therefore, a major issue of concern is how to translate this goal into effective, implementable courses, teaching strategies, and assessment methodologies,4,12−14 which are consonant with this goal of HOCS learning. Two questions are important to ask: First, what should it take in the context of contemporary science and chemical education reform, worldwide? The second is: What type of chemical education can lead to changes in behavior of individuals, industries, institutions, organizations and governments, that will allow development and growth to take place within the limits set by ecological imperatives? Accordingly, a sound response to these questions would be a shift from algorithmic lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) teaching to HOCS learning: the development of the capacity of evaluative, critical system thinking for decision making, problem solving, and transfer in the interdisciplinary STES interfaces context.4,9,12−14 Further necessary responses include those in Table 3. The
■
Table 3. Paradigms Shifts Necessary To Move from LOCS to HOCS From
To
Doing justice to the chemistry discipline (disciplinarity) Imparting knowledge and “covering material” Assessment of passive knowledge
Doing justice to learners and the public (interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinarity)a Conceptual learning and development of transferable HOCS Assessment of HOCSb
a
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The essential recommendations below are based on research and my experience grappling with how to teach chemistry and science generally so that students will meaningfully learn in ways applicable to adopting sustainable environmental practices. 1. Environmental chemistry literacy for global sustainability should be an imperative for all. 2. Attaining this literacy requires an interdisciplinary conceptual approach in teaching and “HOCS evaluative learning” for transfer. 3. Chemical and science education for sustainability should become an imperative within science education at all levels. Science education (and specifically chemical education) that addresses issues relevant to global sustainability will most likely require: • Restructuring science and chemical education, at all levels, and science teacher training programs, accordingly • Teaching how to deal with interconnected complex systems and situations • A much greater emphasis on inter- and crossdisciplinarity in teaching and learning • A switch from the contemporary dominant algorithmic teaching to conceptual HOCS-learning14−18 • The development and implementation of instruments and methodology for contextually relevant HOCS assessment Undertaking these efforts and shifting f rom algorithmic LOCS teaching to HOCS learning could likely be achieved by implementing the following strategies: • HOCS-oriented teaching strategies • Active participation of the students in the learning process • Fostering of “question-asking”; critical and evaluative thinking • Encouraging group work on homework assignments and mini-projects • Extensive and effective student−teacher feedback mechanisms • No specific course textbook to be assigned
See refs 4 and 8. bSee refs 9−15.
crucial issue is the translation of these paradigm shifts into implementable, effective transdisciplinary, HOCS-oriented science and chemistry courses, teaching, learning and nonalgorithmic assessment strategies. Following are a few selected, illustrative implemented examples, starting with selected HOCS-promoting teaching strategies: 1. Self-study of preclass lecture material. Students have the course outline, scheduling, objectives, requirements, and 298
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300047v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 297−300
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Editorial
■
• Providing in-class opportunities to defend and test concepts • Students learn “material” before it is “covered” by the instructor in class • Lecture, recitation, and lab sessions are integrated within the course • Administration of specially designed HOCS- and conceptual change-oriented exams
REFERENCES
(1) Holme, T. Assessment Data and Decision Making in Teaching. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1017−1017. (2) Pienta, N. J. Striking a Balance with Assessment. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1199−1200. (3) Pienta, N. J. Celebrating the Chemical Education Connections to Health and Medicine. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 1343−1344. (4) Zoller, U. Alternative Assessment as (Critical) Means of Facilitating HOCS-Promoting Teaching and Learning in Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ.: Res. Pract. Eur. 2001, 2 (1), 9−17. (5) Zoller, U. Environmental Chemistry: The Disciplinary/ Correction-Transdisciplinary/Prevention Paradigm Shift. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2000, 7 (2), 63−65.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. 299
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300047v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 297−300
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
(6) Zoller, U. The Challenge for Environmental Chemistry Educators. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2001, 8 (1), 1−4. (7) Zoller, U. Chemistry and Environmental Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2004, 5 (2), 95−97. (8) Zoller, U.; Scholz, R. W. The HOCS Paradigm Shift from Disciplinary Knowledge (LOCS) to Interdisciplinary Evaluative System Thinking. HOCS: What Should It Take in ScienceTechnology-Environment-Society-Oriented Courses, Curricula and Assessment? Wat. Sci. Technol. 2004, 49 (8), 27−36. (9) Zoller, U. Lecture and Learning: Are They Compatible? Maybe for LOCS; Unlikely for HOCS. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 195−197. (10) Zoller, U. Teaching Tomorrow’s College Science CoursesAre We Getting It Right? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1999, 29, 409−414. (11) Zoller, U. From Algorithmic LOCS Teaching to HOCS LearningA Paradigm Shift: What Does/Should It Take in PracticeOriented Research in STES Education? In Quality in Practice-Oriented Research in Science Education; Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Chemical Education, Dortmund, June 3−5, 2004; Ralle, B., Eilks, I., Eds.; Shaker Verlag: Germany; pp 125−135. (12) Zoller, U. Education in Environmental Chemistry: Setting the Agenda and Recommending Action. A Workshop Report Summary. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (8), 1237−1240. (13) Tsaparlis, G.; Zoller, U. 2003 Evaluation of Higher- vs. LowerOrder Cognitive Skills-Type Examinations in Chemistry: Implications for University In-Class Assessment and Examina. Univ. Chem. Educ. 2004b, 7 (2), 50−57. (14) Lubezki, A.; Dori, J. Y.; Zoller, U. HOCS-Promoting Assessment of Students’ Performance on Environment-Related Undergraduate Chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2004, 5 (2), 175−184. (15) Holme, T. Assessing Conceptual and Algorithmic Knowledge in General Chemistry with ACS Exams. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (9), 1217−1222. (16) Zoller, U. Promoting “HOCS Learning” via Students’ Self-Study and Assessment in Freshman Chemistry Courses. In Teaching Tips, Innovations in Undergraduate Science Instruction, Druger, M., Siebert, E. D., Crow, L. W., Eds.; Society of College Science Teaching, NSTA: Washington, DC, 2004. (17) Zoller, U.; Tsaparlis, G.; Fastow, M.; Lubezky, A. Student SelfAssessment of Higher-Order Cognitive Skills in College Science Teaching. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1997, 27 (2), 99−101. (18) Zoller, U.; Tsaparlis, G. Higher-Order Cognitive Skills and Lower-Order Cognitive Skills: The Case of Chemistry. Res. Sci. Educ. 1997, 27 (1), 117−130.
300
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300047v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 297−300
