Editorial pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
What We Do and Don’t Know about Teaching and Learning Science: The National Research Council Weighs in on Discipline-Based Education Research Norbert J. Pienta* Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2556, United States ABSTRACT: The National Research Council recently published a report about discipline-based education research in science and engineering. Some implications for chemical education are presented, along with the role of chemical education research in the Journal. KEYWORDS: General Public, Chemical Education Research
A
mong the joys and sorrows of a recent family event1 were several conversations with relatives, friends, and acquaintances about chemical education both as a career and as a scholarly pursuit. The people that hadn’t seen me in a long time asked the same kinds of questions: Aren’t you somewhere in the Midwest? I remember something about science: aren’t you in chemistry? Is it mostly research or teaching, or do you do both? The responses had to be short, in some cases summarizing a long span of time since the last conversation, “I live in Iowa but am moving to the University of Georgia. I used to conduct research in organic chemistry but for the second part of my career now study student problem solving: chemical education research.” In many respects, explaining chemical education research (CER) is easier than talking about laser-induced transient absorption spectroscopy. And those folks with whom I had the conversations seemed pleased that academia had such a scholarly interest in student learning. Research and scholarship about teaching and learning in science disciplines has others’ attention, including the National Research Council, NRC. The NRC is a group within the National Academies whose “[I]ndependent, expert reports and other scientific activities inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world”.2 The NRC recently issued a report, “DisciplineBased Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering”, based on a “[S]tudy on the status, contributions, and future direction of discipline-based education research (DBER) in physics, biological sciences, geosciences, and chemistry”.3 This NSFfunded, 30-month study and the resulting report summarizes evidence from basic research and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM education both within individual scientific disciplines but also across all of them. Furthermore, the NRC report suggests potentially fruitful areas and topics for additional scholarly evaluation and research. To inform this study and report, the NRC convened a committee of experts covering the various disciplines and commissioned other scholars to prepare a series of white papers that collected and summarized DBER findings in the literature. © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
This consensus statement emerged from the experts’ study of undergraduate science and engineering education:3,4 [R]esearch-based instructional strategies are more effective than traditional lecture in improving conceptual knowledge and attitudes about learning. Effective instruction involves a range of approaches, including making lectures more interactive, having students work in groups, and incorporating authentic problems and activities. The report recommends several approaches:3 • Additional research among different student groups • Longitudinal studies that span K−12 populations in order to better understand the acquisition of important concepts, and factors influencing retention • Assessment beyond test scores and course performance, and better instruments to measure these outcomes • Interdisciplinary studies, including concepts and cognitive processes Finally, the NRC report spoke to the importance of DBER and CER as important scholarly pursuits; research in chemical education should be an integral part of promotion and tenure activities and credentials. JCE has a rich tradition of reporting scholarly work in chemical education, including a section on chemical education research that started as a Journal feature in 1997, characterized by Bunce and Robinson.4 The Journal enthusiastically supports the NRC’s summary of and suggestions for high-quality publications concerning DBER in chemistry. Evidence-based practices are the most likely to produce transformative changes, ones that are persistent and will produce the most progress in teaching and learning chemistry. To that end, look for some announcements and new content in the coming year: updated guidelines for the chemical education research portion of the Journal; periodic reports from CER experts that summarize the basic research across all science disciplines of DBER, including ways to put it into practice when possible; commentary from CER experts and NRC committee members about the report; and finally, those contributions from the CER community that we serve across the world. Published: June 19, 2012 963
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300354t | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 963−964
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Editorial
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
■
REFERENCES
(1) In Memoriam: Walter J. Pienta (1950−2012). (2) The mission of the National Research Council and access to some of its activities can be found online: http://www. nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.html (accessed Jun 2012). (3) Copies of the report can be acquired from the Web site of the National Academies Press: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ id=13362 (accessed Jun 2012). (4) Bunce, D. M.; Robinson, W. R. Research in Chemical EducationThe Third Branch of Our Profession J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (9), 1076−1079. DOI: 10.1021/ed074p1076.
964
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300354t | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 963−964
