Chemical Education Today
Symposium Report on Aligning Texas Four-by-Four High School Curricula and First-Year College Courses by Carissa Manrique* and Diana Mason Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203-5017 *
[email protected] Rationale for Alignment For the past 25 years, academic statistics on college readiness have remained relatively constant. On average, students take six years to complete a four-year college degree, and 30-60% of these students will require remedial coursework upon entering college (1). A more disturbing statistic is that roughly 30% of incoming first-year students consider terminating their academic studies entirely (2). These facts point to an obvious gap between high school and college studies that must be addressed. Creating science core standards is an admirable goal (3), and this process has begun in Texas (4). The challenge now is to inform educators about recent developments at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Chemistry teachers want not only standards appropriate to their students' current and future needs but also a meaningful alignment between secondary schools and postsecondary curricula. This is true not just in Texas but also across the nation. Of course, in addition to bridging the gap between high school and college expectations, the exceedingly high dropout rate needs to be addressed. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan, 30% of those that enter 9th grade do not graduate with their 12th grade class (5). Until recently, high school teachers and college instructors in Texas have been acting in two different worlds: one is the state's Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) (6) for grades K-12, and the other is the Southern Association of College and Schools' accreditation standards for postsecondary institutions in Texas. Produced by TEA and THECB, the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) (4) outline exactly what high schools should teach to prepare students for college-level work in all required core areas (science, mathematics, English and language arts, and social studies) described in the recently mandated four-by-four curriculum. In 2006, Texas legislators passed a law mandating that all students on the recommended high school graduation plan must now successfully complete four years of each core subject. The 2006 law increases the previous required number of credits by one year. Today, everyone interested in chemistry education is faced with implementing strategies for bridging the gaps between high school and college classroom goals. Two recent symposia, both titled College and Career Readiness Symposia on Chemistry, focused on understanding what is expected of students in various college chemistry atmospheres and aligning the revised mathematics and science standards under the auspices of TEKS. Introduction The first symposium occurred in the summer of 2009 on the University of North Texas (UNT) campus in Dallas. It began a 672
Journal of Chemical Education
_
_
dialogue concerning expectations about graduating seniors and incoming first-year students. In attendance were 45 Texas high school teachers and many representatives of universities, junior colleges, technical colleges, and private colleges. From the start, the participants' excitement was evident. The symposium's goals were to begin recognizing the gaps between high school and college chemistry curricula and to discuss what it means for students to be ready for their postsecondary experiences. The symposium also tried to raise awareness of the developments underway in high schools, including dual credit courses, early college programs, and how colleagues in mathematics support efforts to improve chemistry education in Texas. Through discussion, it became apparent that the greatest problem faced in aligning high school and college chemistry curricula was the separation of the mathematics expectations from chemistry content that requires the use of mathematics skills. The follow-up (second) symposium in February 2010 focused on the problem of aligning mathematics and science standards. At this event, teams of high school teachers and postsecondary instructors told participants what prior mathematics knowledge they expect in their classrooms and also shared some of the techniques they use to teach their students. Technical Program The keynote address of the first symposium was presented by Deborah Koeck from Texas State University-San Marcos. Koeck has been actively involved with the development of the revised TEKS (6) and the CCRS (4) codeveloped by TEA and THECB. She sketched the history of how the revisions had attained their current published state and what changes teaching professionals at all levels can expect with the new four-by-four curriculum and upcoming end-of-course exams that will replace the broad-based and multidisciplinary Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) high-stakes graduation requirement. According to Koeck, discussing the TEKS revision process and the CCRS release will lead to an understanding of the relationship between what the standards mean and how they pertain to all parties. This understanding will, in turn, benefit all who are interested in teaching chemistry. The newly released standards delineate what well-rounded high school graduates should know about chemistry when they start their first year of college. Also discussed were interdisciplinary approaches to teaching science, such as how organic chemistry is taught in biology, and how physics and chemistry share certain physical science calculations. The revised chemistry TEKS correct the approach of the earlier version, which simply
_
Vol. 87 No. 7 July 2010 pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 10.1021/ed100393x Published on Web 05/25/2010
Chemical Education Today
addressed how chemistry is a tool for teaching other disciplines (e.g., biology). In contrast, the new TEKS present chemistry as its own discipline and put much greater emphasis on the mathematics required in chemistry (e.g., stoichiometry) that the original TEKS did not even mention. In the second symposium, Koeck addressed the increased emphasis on calculations in the new chemistry TEKS and stressed their alignment with the algebra I curriculum, even though most districts encourage coenrollment in algebra II when students are taking first-year chemistry. Breakout Sessions at the Two Symposia In one of the two breakout sessions of the first symposium, a teacher panel addressed current issues faced by the secondary school teachers. All teachers brought a different perspective, but all acknowledged that postsecondary experiences were foremost on everyone's mind. The teacher panel was composed of inservice teachers from small and large districts in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Topics included the roles of inservice teachers when mentoring preservice teachers; the issues of being a science department chair who must ensure that the TEKS are actually being taught; and dual-enrollment chemistry courses and the academic content background of the high school teacher, who may be teaching the classes with only the minimal required graduate course content (18 h). Special attention was paid to the dual-enrollment courses: The chemistry content covered in the dual classes may be the same, but the pace at which each course proceeds may be quite different. This may affect what chemistry knowledge students retain when they enter their first year of college, especially if they have not had course content for two or three years. The second breakout session at the first symposium addressed university and college expectations in mathematics as they relate to science. Published data (7) on the correlation between success in mathematics and chemistry were presented. As stated in the presented published data, those present agreed that many students entering college are not mathematically ready to succeed in a postsecondary chemistry classroom. This disheartening conclusion led to the idea of needing a second symposium to discuss how we can align high school mathematics and science expectations. The second symposium was held on two campuses: UNTDenton and Texas State University-Round Rock. For this symposium, chemistry teachers were encouraged to bring a mathematics colleague. Each campus addressed six chemistry calculations paired with corresponding mathematics supporting skills highlighted in the revised TEKS: • Basic conversions and use of exponents and dimensional analysis • Wavelength, frequency, energy using Planck's constant and the speed of light, stoichiometry, and multistep problem solving • Molecular geometry and VSEPR, and 2-D and 3-D spaces and polyhedrons • pH, exponential arithmetic, and graphic analysis • Redox processes such as determining oxidation states and concentrations and dilutions • Gas laws and algebraic problem solving
These breakout sessions allowed both chemistry and mathematics teachers to understand how their respective subjects' content is intertwined. Those present also gave suggestions on
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
_
how to incorporate chemistry problems into the mathematics classroom as well as giving their own unique “tricks” to teaching traditionally hard problems. The breakout sessions were followed by an exchange between each group of teachers. This allowed for open discussion on how to solve specific chemistry or mathematics problems and various teacher opinions on the mathematics and science alignment goals. A “speed lunch presentation” was inserted into this professional development experience. The invited table leaders rotated to each of seven lunch tables. They were allowed seven minutes to explain their topic and answer questions before a horn sounded and they had to move to the next table. The topics discussed included: university readiness; college perspective on dual credit and mathematics readiness; career readiness; two-year college readiness; the high school perspective on dual credit and readiness; laboratory readiness; and assessment readiness highlighting the use of ACS exams and other available assessment tools. The consensus was that the expectations in the chemistry classroom and laboratory between high school and college (two-year or four-year) were vastly different. Possibly modeling all classes after either a dual-enrollment or AP classroom would help ease the gap between the high school and college classrooms. Because of the relaxed environment and the speed of delivery of all content, this was one of the highest-rated events, receiving a 4.6 out of 5.0 on the Likert scale evaluation (1 being a poor score and 5 being a high score). At this session, participants were given pertinent handout materials on each of the seven topics and were able to talk one-on-one with each table leader. Closing The first symposium ended with plenary presentations by invited guests from two-year colleges. These were Amina ElAshmawy and Kirk Hunter, who both serve on many ACS committees. El-Ashmawy addressed the community college perspective, and Hunter focused on the perspective of careers at technical colleges. El-Ashmawy reiterated the relationship between mathematics ability and success in first-year chemistry. Hunter related that from his 25 years experience of teaching chemistry he has found that if you provide a positive and exciting learning environment for the students they are more focused to succeed. Students who enroll in community and technical colleges are typically older and may have struggled in high school, but with encouragement and positive reinforcement, students can maintain a high graduation rate. The second symposium ended with the second teleconference of the day; this allowed all present to discuss the paired chemistry and mathematics problems and further discuss what is needed to encourage better alignment between the subjects. Evaluations Overall, the first and second symposia were rated highly using Likert scale evaluations: 4.6 and 4.2, respectively (1 being a poor score and 5 being a high score). Two interesting observations from the participants' comments made were: (i) how grateful they were to talk with teachers at other schools and learn that they had the same pertinent issues; and (ii) how little they knew about each others' curricula in chemistry and mathematics. Several chemistry teachers commented on how difficult it was to invite a mathematics teacher from their campus because they simply did not know anyone well enough to invite them.
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 87 No. 7 July 2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
673
Chemical Education Today
Future plans included a follow-up symposium at the June 2010 Associated Chemistry Teachers of Texas biennial meeting to place greater emphasis on teaching the newly mandated mathematics in the revised TEKS. Teachers expressed great interest in hands-on manipulatives for stoichiometry and other crucial chemistry concepts. The process of implementing the new TEKS and CCRS and attempting to bridge the gap between college and high school expectations in the classroom has begun. The Texas College and Career Readiness Standards are written, and there is a statewide effort to get these standards and the revised TEKS into the hands of the teaching professionals involved. These symposia are only just the beginning. In 2011, the first round of students under these new guidelines will, for the first time, be required to pass an end-of-course exam in sole subject areas (including chemistry) to graduate. At least when teachers are “teaching to the test”, they will be teaching chemistry! Acknowledgment We thank the THECB for underwriting the stipends for the precollege teachers from the funds of Jean Keller (UNT) and Barbara Lerner (TWU) in Denton. This symposium was a great success and has started the ball rolling to help align the high
674
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 87 No. 7 July 2010
_
school and college chemistry curricula in Texas. The 21st Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, held August 1-5, 2010 in Denton, Texas (8), is another venue and means for similar exchanges among chemical educators throughout the country at all levels. Literature Cited 1. Tai, R. H.; Ward, R. B.; Sadler, P. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1703– 1711. 2. Zeegers, P. L. M. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2001, 20, 35–52. 3. Araud, C. Chem. Eng. News 2009, 87, 37–38. 4. Web site of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas College Readiness Standards. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index. cfm?objectid=EADF962E-0E3E-DA80-BAAD2496062F3CD8 (accessed May 2010). 5. Duncan, A. Personal Comments of the U. S. Secretary of Education. Face the Nation, September 9, 2009. 6. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Home Page. http:// www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6148 (accessed May 2010). 7. Mason, D.; Mittag, K. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 256–259. Correction for this article: J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1597. 8. 21st Biennial Conference on Chemical Education Home Page. http://www.bcce2010.org/ (accessed May 2010).
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
