Downloaded via ARIZONA STATE UNIV on July 6, 2018 at 15:24:00 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 6
The Development of a New Curriculum for Chemistry Education in The Netherlands J. H. Apotheker* Science LinX, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 9, 1847 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands *E-mail:
[email protected].
A short overview of the history of chemistry education in The Netherlands since about 1927 is given. Several major changes in 1945, 1968, 1998 and 2013 are highlighted. The last one in 2013 is discussed in more detail. In 2013 a new curriculum was implemented in The Netherlands, based on experiments with teachers that took place between 2002 and 2010. These changes were based on an in depth analysis of problems with chemistry education at that time The new curriculum has not only a focus on concepts of chemistry, but focuses as well on the relationship between chemistry and society.. The concepts are used to delve deeper into this relationship. Resulting in having sustainability part of the curriculum, as well as green chemistry, life cycle analysis and cradle to cradle design. More than 300 teachers participated in developing educational materials. Some twenty schools participated in a pilot that took four years to develop and try out the new curriculum. The results of this pilot were used to formulate an exam program that was presented in September 2010. Based on this exam program a more concrete syllabus was formulated, which contained the learning objectives that would be examined centrally. In 2013 new books for chemistry in secondary schools appeared. In 2015 and 2016 the first central examinations were administered. It will take some time before the new curriculum has settled down and found a concrete form.
© 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 Chemistry education in The Netherlands has gone through a number of developments since 1945, marking the end of World War II (1). At that time chemistry was taught only in upper secondary education. And then only in those groups that chose a science major. That meant that only a small number of people actually learned anything about chemistry. Since 1927, few changes had been made to the curriculum that existed before the war, as described by Verkade (2). Students learned a lot of facts, and did little or no experiments. When experiments were done, they were performed by the teacher. Verkade gives examples of questions from the central examination that students needed to answer: (1) 2.1 grams of a monovalent base, dissolved in 75 grams of water, give a lowering of the freezing paint of 1.852'. The percentage dissociation of the base in this solution is 95. Calculate the atomic weight of the metal of this base. H = 1; 0 = 16; molecular lowering of the freezing point of water (1 grammolecule in 100 gr. of water) is 19°C. And (2) How is a solution of sodium hydrogen sulfate obtained, if a burette, caustic soda solution, dilute sulfuric acid and a litmus solution are available? (3) What reactions occur on heating: (a) sodium bicarbonate; (6) mercuric nitrate; (c) ammonium chloride; (d) blue vitriol? How may a solution of ferric chloride be converted into a solution of ferrous chloride and into a solution of ferric sulfate? These questions illustrate the type of knowledge students were expected to learn and reproduce. It cannot be a surprise that lecturers at university complained about the lack of knowledge of students. After six months, they had completely forgotten most of these facts.
The First Major Change in 1968 Still things did not change over much until in 1968 a major change in secondary education was implemented. The major reason for this change was the realization that more people with higher education were needed for the economy to grow. Only a small percentage of students went from secondary school to higher education. That needed to change. A separation was made between secondary education preparing for university, and more general education. One of the major changes was the reduction in the number of subjects in which an exam had to be taken. Before 1968, this was 14 or more. After 1968 this was reduced to 7. In the Gymnasia, in which Latin and Greek were obligatory, this meant that both Dutch and one of the classic languages 80 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
were part of these 7. The others could be chosen freely. One of these subjects was chemistry. As all science faculties as well as all medical faculties required chemistry as a subject is was chosen widely. In the “Athenea” as they were called, which did not offer Latin or Greek, the only obligatory subject was Dutch. In later stages English and Mathematics were included in the obligatory subjects. The main advantage lay in the fact that now there was a lot more time available for subjects like chemistry. This called for a change in curriculum. Both in The Netherlands and elsewhere this led to experiments like the Nuffield curriculum (3). In this curriculum, which was experimented in the eighties, several changes were implemented. One of the first was a change in the curriculum for 9th grade. Every student has to take chemistry in 9th grade. In order to give a better overview of what chemistry entailed the subjects taught at this level were changed. Goals were to showcase chemistry as a science and as part of cultural background of society, and to recognize the role chemistry plays in society. The level should be such that all students, including those that did not choose a science major, should be able to follow the lessons. Subjects taught in 9th grade were: • • • • • • •
Substances Chemical reactions Elements and compounds Combustion Molecules and atoms Atomic model and chemical bonding Electives
In the higher grades, 10, 11 and 12 topics like • • • • • • • • •
Rutherford atomic model, isotopes Periodic table Redox reactions Acid/base theory Rates and catalysis Equilibrium Organic chemistry Energy and free energy Electives
All in all, a much more complete program, which fitted much better to first year university chemistry courses. The effect was, that a much larger proportion of the students elected chemistry as one of the seven subjects to study. Universities required chemistry for all medical studies, and all sciences. Almost 50 to 70% of the students in pre-university secondary schools elected chemistry around 1980. 81 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
One of the major changes in the curriculum in 1980 was also a didactic one. In the older program knowledge was built up from theory, in small steps, and mainly focused on facts. Students had to learn and reproduce all types of reactions like: • •
Acid + base yields salt and water Acid forming oxide + water yields acid
There was little or no room for practical experiments carried out by students. In the new program acids were introduced by an experiment of litmus with several solutions. Focus was more on understanding and application than on reproduction of facts. In the textbooks chapters were now called “water” for example. This new more inductive approach was appreciated by the students (3).
The Second Major Change in 1998 In 1974 a discussion started about the role of education in society, led by van Kemenade, at that time minister of education. This discussion led to a broader discussion about secondary education. After experiments with so called middle schools this discussion culminated in a major change in secondary education, which was implemented in 1998. The main idea behind this change was that still more students were needed in higher education. The level in secondary schools was considered too high. Another reason to change the curriculum and introduce more subjects was the idea that a broader knowledge was needed in order to participate more fully in society. In this new system, which is depicted in Figure 1, students were supposed to choose a major after the first phase of secondary education. Secondary education is split into two phases, in which the third year is a pivot-point. Majors to be chosen were: • • • •
Culture and Society Society and Economics Science and Health Science and Technology
The implementation of these majors led to a dramatic drop in students electing to take one of the science majors. A shift towards society and economics took place, which was chosen by about 25% of the students. Attendance in Science and health was about 25%, while science and technology only drew about 11% of the students. This was also influenced by the fact that for most science studies only science and health was an entry requirement. Another major change in 1998 was that the number of subjects was raised again from 7 to about 14, giving students o broader general education, deemed necessary to be able to participate more fully in society. This led to less class time for chemistry and science in particular. What also happened is, that the number of students choosing a bachelor in science and technology dropped from about 13% to about 7.5% in 2004 (4). 82 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Figure 1. The Dutch educational system. After primary education, three strands in secondary education are possible. The years Chemistry is taught are indicated in grey.
Analysis of Problems in Chemistry Education This initiated a wide spread discussion about the quality and content of chemistry in secondary education. In Europe, the EU published a report (5) about the problems in science education. Shortly later followed by a critical review from the Nuffield foundation (6). In The Netherlands, a committee led by professor van Koten, dean of the science faculty at the university of Utrecht analyzed a number of problems in The Netherlands (7). 83 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
In line with the other European reports (5, 6) the van Koten committee reported that • • •
The image of chemistry as a subject is negative There is no relation between the content of chemistry in secondary education and chemistry in research and industry The current chemistry curriculum leaves teachers and students not enough time to make chemistry education more challenging and interesting
Van Koten was then asked to chair a committee that formulated possible changes. This committee submitted a reported in 2003 (8). In that report, a number of proposed changes in chemistry education were formulated. A new curriculum for chemistry should be • • •
context based based on achieving scientific literacy developed by networks of teachers, coached by professionals
The ministry of education initiated a steering committee, again chaired by van Koten. This steering committee was asked to develop a new curriculum together with teachers. A group of coaches from different universities was found and brought together. This group worked locally with teachers in the region to develop educational material for 9th grade chemistry classes, using the staring points and structure of Chemie im Kontext (CHIK), as developed at the IPN and the University of Oldenburg (9). The CHIK structure consisted in a number of steps. Starting point is a context some phenomenon, that students encounter in their daily life. “combustion” is a standard example. In one of the comic books that was popular at the time, called “Asterix and Cleopatra (10)” In this story a taster, who tastes everything Cleopatra eats is introduced. He is poisoned, which is the basis of the educational material. The main question for the students was: “How can we find out whether food is poisoned, without risking the life of a taste?” The answer is found in all sorts of separation techniques and reactants that are specific for certain types of food. In the last part students find out in which situations they can use this knowledge they have acquired, for example in the purification of water to drinking water. In Table 1 the steps in the modules are given. In three years’ time about fifteen different modules were prepared, published and tried out. More than 300 different teachers out of about 1500 chemistry teachers in The Netherlands were involved in try-outs and giving feedback on the use of the material. Even the Dutch society for chemical industry financed the development of modules, highlighting chemical industry (11). 84 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Table 1. Phases developed in a CHIK module Phases in module Phase 1: Engage
Introduce context, read Asterix and Cleopatra
Formulate context question
Phase 2: Explore
Derive relevant scientific questions
Define needed knowledge
Phase 3: Explain
1. collect knowledge, acquire skills 2. exchange and scaffold knowledge 3. answer context question
Phase 4: Explore
Can other context questions be answered?
Connection to following module, how can water be purified into drinking water?
The feedback received from these teachers was used to discuss the way a new chemistry curriculum could be developed for higher secondary education. This discussion resulted in the start of a pilot in 2007 with about twenty different schools. In parallel to the development of the new chemistry curriculum, biology and physics formed their own steering committee developing changes for that curriculum. Mathematics followed a bit later. Because of these new developments and discussions people took the initiative to startup experiments. A completely new subject, called science, life and technology was developed, in which context oriented modules were designed. In these modules at least two subjects from STEM(Science Technology Engineering and mathematics) were combined. In 2016 about 200 schools offer this particular course to students as an elective apart from the other science (12).
Pilot Experiment In the pilot experiment about twenty schools participated voluntarily. They were chosen from the schools that had participated in the previous experiments. They were located around the universities of Nijmegen, Groningen and Utrecht. They agreed to develop a new curriculum, based on the work developed earlier by several groups. Three strands were formed, coached by educational researchers and teacher trainers. One was connected to the University of Utrecht, one to the University of Nijmegen, and one (the author) connected to the university of Groningen. Each developed their own learning line with the schools they worked with. The schools were regionally organized and signed a contract with the Institute for Curriculum Development, which financed this pilot. The pilot was to be evaluated by a group of scientist from the Institute for Curriculum Development (13). 85 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Main questions to be answered in the pilot were: •
Implementation of the new curriculum o o o o
•
In what way are teachers and students coping with the new curriculum? Which problems arise and how are they solved? How does the curriculum fit in the school organization? Are the basic principles formulated by the van Koten committee observed?
Results of the new curriculum? o o o o
Does it result in a coherent program? Is the program suitable for all teachers? Does the program induce more students to choose chemistry as a subject? How do teachers and students evaluate the material?
The answers to the first three items and the last three were answered by the group coordinated by professor W. Kuiper of SLO, that reported separately (11).
Design of the Pilot The three coaches developed three different strands. One strand was based on material that was developed earlier at the University of Nijmegen (14). This material used experiments as a starting point for the development of chemical theory. For the pilot, this was adapted to be used within contexts. The second strand, developed by the university of Utrecht had as a central focus cooperative learning. They used the background of Johnson and Johnson (15) as a base for their educational design as well as jigsaw, which was developed at the University of California at Santa Cruz (16). The third strand, coached by the author, centered around the University of Groningen did not use one specific educational design. Material from different sources using appropriate pedagogical methodology for each subject. Basically, in this group the 5 E model as developed by Roger Bybee (17) was used as a backbone for design. This method is described in Table 2. During the pilot coaches and teachers met regularly to discuss progress and problems. The coaches met as well, in a meeting chaired by a member of the national steering committee (the author). In Table 3 the titles, indicating the context that was used for the modules that were used in the per-university groups are given. The year was divided into five periods. Each period contained about 12 lessons of chemistry.
86 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Table 2. Phases in the 5E model Phase
Description
Techniques used in the module perfume (see Table 3)
Engage
In the engage phase students are getting interested in the subject of the module. Both formal and informal learning activities will be planned.
Students were given an article in which the molecules active for smell in perfumes were discussed.
Explore
In the explore phase students start formulating questions.
How can you differentiate between these molecules, what names do they get, what are there characteristics?
Explain
In the explanation phase knowledge is gained, data collected and scaffolded.
Students performed experiments, looked up IPUAC rules for names of organic compounds. Knowledge was related to existing knowledge about organic molecules.
Elaborate
In the elaboration phase the attention shifts another context.
Students studied biodiesel and were able to use the knowledge about esters they learned in the previous phase.
Evaluate
In the evaluation phase the students are tested on their content knowledge. The students themselves determine what they learned from the project.
A regular final test was written by the students, to determine their knowledge about organic chemistry.
87 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Table 3. Titles of modules used in the pilot experiment Period
Year 4 pre university
Year 5 pre university
Year 6 pre university
Average age students
15/16
16/17
17/18
1
Perfume (esters, alcohols, carboxylic acids, unsaturated compounds)
ECO-travel around the world (stoichiometry, biotechnology)
Chemistry in the mouth (buffers, receptors, polymers in dentistry)
2
Growing (salts, fertilizer and pesticides)
Energy to take away (red ox)
Gasification (technology, alternative fuels, electro. technology)
3
A swallow or a shot. The route of Medicine (influence of pH on organic substances)
Smart materials
Own research project
4
Artificial sweeteners (stereochemistry, peptides and biotechnology)
Chemistry of transportation (polymers energy in the cell)
Nobel prize (the atom and the periodic table)
Green Chemistry
5
Exam training
Central Examination In The Netherlands students take a central examination at the end of their last school year. Because the curriculum for this particular group of students was different from the rest of the schools, a special central examination was made for this group. One third of the questions was identical to the regular group, one third was specific for the program they had followed, one third was a mix between their background and the regular group. A guarantee was given that the results of the pilot were compensated, so that students were not disadvantaged by their participation in the pilot. The first time such an exam was written by the students was in 2008 (18). This led to surprising results. The students scored more or less the same as regular students on the third that was identical to the normal curriculum. They scored less on the questions related to their own program. The problem here was that the people that produced the exam questions were not directly involved in the pilot. Over the years this changed towards a better fit. Towards the end of the pilot after 5 years of education, and two central exam sessions the teachers of all participating schools worked together to formulate learning objectives for a new curriculum. In these sessions, chaired by the 88 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
steering committee, the Institute for Curriculum Development participated, as well as CEVO, the Dutch organization for producing the central examinations.
Result This ultimately led to a proposal for an exam program, as part of a final report to the minister of education. This report was handed to the minister in 2011 (19). She decided the new curriculum should be implemented in September 2013. In order to be able to do that a special curriculum committee was set up, to formulate the exact learning goals for the program, based on the exam program. The first version of this curriculum was published in 2012 (20). The old curriculum was set up around concepts in chemistry. There was a section organic chemistry, redox reactions, acid/base theory etc. In the new curriculum things were organized in a different way. The first three sections dealt with core concepts and skills. In these sections basic chemical knowledge about chemical bonds, structures and properties was defined, including concepts like equilibrium, energy technological discussions etc. In the second part, chemical methodology, safety and synthesis were a subject. In the last part applications of chemical knowledge like innovation and chemical research including sustainability are defined. Life cycle analysis, cradle to cradle design are part of the curriculum. Green chemistry is part of the section on chemical technology, and includes analysis of chemical processes, and sustainable production. In the last section, the link between society and chemistry is defined, which includes aspects of biochemistry, but also the relationship between chemical processes and the environment.
Discussion Results during the pilot varied. Especially in the first year it took time to develop new material that could be used. Both teachers and students had problems adapting to their different roles. One teacher commented, it took him two years to change his role from lecturer to teacher-coach. It took time for the students as well to accept and implement the new responsibility they received in their own learning. But students enjoyed working with the material very much (11). They were interested in the subjects and worked hard as a rule in class. In the cooperative learning strand teachers needed extra training in order to work effectively with the cooperative learning methodology. Problems that were signaled involved the lack of practice. In the new material practicing in exercises and problem solving was not a large part of the material. As a result calculations involving the mole, pH, equilibrium were not developed as fully as wished. Extra sessions were needed to let the students master this type of problems more deeply. Another problem was the material produced. This lacked finesse. It still needed to be adapted for classroom work. This bothered both the teachers as well as the students. The students indicated it was difficult to determine exactly what they needed to learn for a test. 89 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Students’ motivation was increased. Students experienced that they needed to know things in order to be able to answer the context questions. This stimulated them enormously. Teachers indicated the program that was carried out was coherent. Students got a much better idea of the role of chemistry in society. Contexts are effective in engaging the students. Because of the new curriculum publishers have adapted the textbooks for chemistry. They have not yet adapted all ideas of context oriented chemistry education, but the new books are a tremendous step in the new direction (21–23). In 2016 the first central examination of the new curriculum was taken. These central examinations have a major effect on the way teachers prepare their students. The first exam was still fairly traditional, even though new subjects like green chemistry were examined. It is unfortunate that the central exams have such a large effect on the realized curriculum in the classroom. It is expected however that the next exams will slowly adapt more and pore to the new curriculum.
Acknowledgments This work has been financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education, The Institute if Curriculum Development, Betasteunpunt, VNCI.
References Velthorst, N. In De geschiedenis van de scheikunde in Nederland 3; Homburg, E., Palm, L., Eds.; Delft University Press: Delft, 2004; pp 37–59. 2. Verkade, P. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1927, 4 (6), 703–710. 3. Ingle, R. B. Sci. Educ. 1984, 68 (5), 541–561. 4. Gans, S. ontwikkelingen in de instroom in het hoger onderwijs-CBS; The Hague, 2010. 5. Rocard, M.; Csermely, P.; Jorde, D.; Lenzen, D.; Walberg-Henriksson, H.; Hemmo, V. Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe; European Commission: Brussels, 2007; Vol. EUR 22845. 6. Osborne, J.; Dillon, J. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A Report to the Nuffield Foundation; The Nuffield Foundation: London, 2008. 7. Koten Kruijff, B. de, Driessen, H. P. W., Kerkstra, A., Meinema,H. A., G. van. Bouwen aan scheikunde; SLO: Enschede, 2002. 8. Driessen, H. P. W.; Meinema, H. A. Chemie tussen context en concept; SLO: Enschede, 2003. 9. Parchmann, I.; Ralle, B. In Chemieunterricht im Spannungsfeld GesellschaftChemie-Umwelt; Kornetzt, A., Ed.; Cornelesen Verlag: Berlin, 1998; pp 12–24. 10. Goscinny, R.; Uderzo, A. Asterix and Cleopatra; Orion: London, 2004. 11. Stichting C3. Onderwijsmiddelen nieuwe scheikunde. https://onderwijs middelen.c3.nl/project/vnci-nieuwe-scheikunde/ (accessed 3/14/2018). 12. Vereniging NLT, C. betavak NLT. http://betavak-nlt.nl/nl/p/english/ (accessed 3/14/2018). 1.
90 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
13. Folmer, E.; Bruning, L.; Michels, B.; Kuiper, W. Evaluatie invoering vernieuwe bèta examenprogramma’s; SLO: Enschede, 2012. 14. Apotheker, J. H.; Bulte, A. NVOX 2008, 33 (5), 202–204. 15. Johnson Johnson,R. T., D. W. Learning Together and Alone, 5th ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, 1999. 16. Aronson, E.; Patnoe, S. The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom, 2nd ed.; Allyn and Bacon: San Francisco, 1996. 17. Bybee, R. W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2002. 18. Apotheker, J.; Hennink, D.; van Hekezen, N.; Kleijn, E. D.; Vogelezang, M. NVOX 2009 (8), 359–361. 19. Apotheker, J. H.; Bulte, A.; de Kleijn, E.; van Koten, G.; Meinema, H.; Sellar, F. Scheikunde in de dynamiek van de toekomst, Eindrapport van de stuurgroep Nieuwe Scheikunde 2004-2010; SLO: Enschede, 2010. 20. Bertona, C.; de Kleijn, E.; Hennink, D.; Apotheker, J. H.; van Drooge, H.; Waals, M.; van Daalen, R.; van Lune, J. Scheikunde VWO, Syllabus Centraal Examen 2016; College voor Examens: Utrecht, 2014. 21. Lodewijks, T.; Valk, T. de Nova Scheikunde, 4 HAVO, 1st ed.; Kerkstra, A., Ed.; Malmberg: Hertogenbosch, 2013. 22. Kabel-van den Brand, M. A. W.; Spillane, B. Chemie Overal, 4th ed.; Noordhoff Uitgevers bv: Groningen, 2012. 23. Bolt, W.; Driessen, H.; Rietman, W.; Scholte, H.; Velzeboer, M. Chemie, 6th ed.; Buwalda, R., Scholte, H., Thole, E., Eds.; Noordhoff Uitgevers bv: Groningen, 2013.
91 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
