editorial1y speaking Is Curriculum Reform Enough? Descriptions of the 14 planning grants awarded by the NSF for the purpose of inducing change in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum appeared in the January issue of this Journal (p. 43). The overwhelming majority of the planning grants are described as "consortia," reflecting the perceived need for systemic chemistry curricular reform. Reform in undergraduate chemistry education must extend beyond simple reformation of the curriculum, especially if it is to be systemic and successful. The effort to transform a whole system of chemical education so as to make it more accessible and more interesting to a broader cross-section of students, which presumably will translate to a higher "success rate," involves more than just the curriculum. Also, a number of different reform movements are being played out in educational circles, which will probably affect the success of the curricular changes sought by the NSF for chemistry. Subject matter reforms involve not only the curriculum but also pedagogy and standards. Subject matter reforms often aspire to produce more ambitious student outcomes, e.g., to enhance learning and to provide an appreciation of science. These elements of reform may, however, be incompatible with textbook-bound curricula and the l e c t u r e recitation style of education currently in place a t most institutions. Such reform vectors demand t h a t undergraduate chemistry teachers be capable of integrating new content areas and methods of delivery into coherent lessons and utilizing students' time efficiently. Indeed, not only do teachers need to be capable of such activities, they must also be enabled and encouraged to do them if reforms are to succeed. Such demands may represent a substantial departure from a teacher's prior experience, established beliefs, and current practice, which in turn may a d as animpediment to systemic reform. The current mind-set of teachers involved with entry-level chemistry courses in many tertiary-level institutions may be incongruent with the best thinking reflected in present-day curriculum reform movements. Many teachers at this level are trapped in a "teach as I was taught" mentality (perhaps unknowinely), which is re-enforced bv an administrative environme&that generally providesno development time for im~rovineteachine effectiveness. In such places. teaching i&olvesUchoosingan appropriate textbook and preparing lectures. If you've taught the course before, it's relatively easy to accommodate your old lecture to the new book. With minimal change, a really clever teacher can five essentially the same lectures vear aRer vear while teaching from i n y modern textbook: But what happens if reform involves minimizine lectures? If. in order to meet the NSF's stated objectivesythe best thinking dictates that instructional stratefiies shift away from being lecture-centered, what will happen to the role and importance of textbooks?
A part of the educational reform movement that is not necessarily content-oriented centers on problems associated with equity, the increasing diversity of the student population, and making science education more inclusive, especially with respect to nonscience majors. The general elements of such reforms address achievement disparities amone students with widelv different backmunds. academicuas well as socioeconokc. In the past such reforms have focused on remediation and delineating the wavs ~ "in~ - which educational practices define and conrribute to student failure. Reforms that attemot to address factors relating to low achievement to institutional failure clearly must involve classroom practice. What will haopen .. in this realm when instruction 6ecomes more student-centered? Some reform movements seek more widespread and ngorous use of assessments that truly measure what students are learning as opposed to what faculty think they are teaching them. Assessment methods are obviously l a p -fine- behind advances in curricular desim. and nolicvmak" ers at all levels, for the most part, co&ue to judge the success of reform efforts on the basis of standardized test scores. The current thinking on new forms of assessment (writing samples. open-ended reasonine items. ~ortfolios. etc.) ~ u ~ ~ e s ~ reforms t h a that t are stri;tlY cur;i'cular ma; not fulfill expectations. Attemptine . .. curricular reforms without accommodating to current assessment reforms could he counterproductive. What will happen to curricular reform schemes when methods of asseiiment change? In recent years there have been' attempts a t reforms in the social organization of schools. Almost every state has bad initiatives in school reform based on oriicioles. i.e.. site-based decision-making, rather than on specified practices. Hidden in such school reforms are implications regarding instructional strategies and, indirectly, retraining programs designed for precollege teachers that must be accommodated in tertiary-level curricular reforms. Finally, there are widespread reform movements to professionalize teaching. These generally involve a n accreditation of teacher education programs as well as candidate assessment. Such reforms involve establishing demonstrable standards with respect to a teacher's knowledee base. ~~~~-~ Ambitious as the NSF's chemistry reform initiative is"a few awards of up to $1million per year for over three to five yearsu-it may not be enough to bring about the desired changes in a systemic manner. Fourteen groups have been invited to prepare comprehensive proposals that could catalyze fundamental changes in entry-level chemistry courses. Competition will be keen. Regardless of what the "desired outcomes" are judged to be, the success of any one of the winner's plan may ultimately. depend on how the . "new curriculum" i s played out with respect to the other educational reform movemcnts, some of which may appear to have verv little to do with how the "content ofchemistrv" -------- ~is expressek a t the tertiary level. JJL
-
A
A
~
~
~
,
.
-~
~~~~
~~~~
Volume 71 Number 4 April 1994
271
