Systemic Reform in Chemical Education: An International Perspective

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064

Systemic Reform in Chemical Education: An International Perspective

W

A. F. M. Fahmy Department of Chemistry, Ain Shams University, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt J. J. Lagowski* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; *[email protected]

Background

Concept Mapping and Systemics

Chemistry educators have been attempting to reform chemical education since the early days of the publication of this Journal (1). The current reform process gained considerable strength in the early 1990s (2) when the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced a number of major initiatives in science and mathematics education, among which was a major commitment to restructure the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Indeed, the Foundation has supported five major initiatives chosen from a pool of 14 initial submissions (3). Interest in chemistry education reform also has found expression internationally; see, for example, selected references from this Journal (4). We present here a preliminary report of our vision of reform as dictated by international issues brought about by the globalization of a wide spectrum of human activities. Economics, media, politics, and banking are among the human activities that have achieved a global, as opposed to a regional or a local, perspective. Science education—that process by which progress in science is transmitted to the appropriate cohort of world citizens—must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to an uncertain or, at best, ill-defined global future. That future, however, ultimately must include an appreciation of the vital role that scientists and chemists, in particular, play in human development. Thus, the future of science education must reflect a flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing world needs. It is our thesis that a systemic view of science with regard to principles and their internal (to science) interactions as well as the interactions with human needs will best serve the future world society. Through the use of a systemic approach, we believe it is possible to teach people in all areas of human activity—economic, political, scientific— to practice a more global view of the core science relationships and of the importance of science to such activities. As a start, we suggest the development of an educational process based on the application of “systemics”, which we believe can affect both teaching and learning. The use of systemics can help students begin to understand interrelationships of concepts in a greater context, a point of view, once achieved, that ultimately should prove beneficial to the future citizens of a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. Moreover, if students learn systemics in the context of learning chemistry, we believe they will doubly benefit by learning chemistry and learning to see all subjects in a greater context.

In the early 1960s, when behaviorist theory prevailed among educational psychologists, Ausubel published his theory of meaningful learning, portions of which appeared in his book entitled The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning (5); a more comprehensive view of his ideas was published later (6). Contemporary assimilation theory stems from Ausubel’s views of human learning that incorporates cognitive, affective, and psychomotor elements integrated to produce meaningful learning (as opposed to rote learning). To Ausubel, meaningful learning is a process in which new information is related to an existing relevant aspect of an individual’s knowledge structure and which, correspondingly, must be the result of an overt action by the learner. Teachers can encourage this choice by using tools such as concept maps (7). It is postulated that continued learning of new information relevant to information already understood (presumably) produces constructive changes in neural cells that already are involved in the storage of the associated knowledge unit. An important component in Ausubel’s writing has been the distinction he emphasized between the rote–meaningful learning continuum and the reception–discovery continuum for instruction. The orthogonal relationship between these two continua is illustrated in Figure 1.

1078

Meaningful concept Learning mapping lectures, most textbook presentations Rote multiplication Learning tables Reception Instruction

well–designed multimedia studies

most routine research or intellectual most school laboratory work production applying formulas to solve problems

trial and error puzzle solutions

Guided Discovery Instruction

Autonomous Discovery Instruction

Figure 1. Examples of instructional techniques displayed on the orthogonal rote–meaningful learning continuum and the reception– discovery continuum. (Adapted from ref 7b.)

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 9 September 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

Research: Science and Education

According to Ausubel, the essence of the meaningful learning process is that symbolically expressed ideas are related to what the learner already knows. Meaningful learning presupposes that the learner has a disposition to relate the new materials to his or her cognitive structure and that the new material learned will be potentially meaningful to him or her. In other words, it takes an overt act by the learner to make learning meaningful. Concept mapping (3) is a device that can be used to communicate to the learner as well as providing a vehicle to help the learner with meaningful learning tasks. Of the types of meaningful learning that Ausubel described—representational learning, propositional learning, and concept learning—the latter is of interest here. The acquisition of subject matter primarily consists of concept learning. Concept mapping (7) is a device that provides the basis of relating new knowledge to assimilated knowledge in a systematic way. Concept maps have been used as metacognitive tools to help teachers and learners improve teaching and learning. Concept maps created by students are an idiosyncratic representation of a domain-specific knowledge that can provide teachers with information on what students know because such maps can show the students initial concepts, how they are contextually related, and how learners reorganize their cognitive structures after a given teaching activity. Our interest in concept maps here is their relationship to the systemic diagrams in this paper as guides to teachers presenting chemistry in a global manner. We wish to report the results of a preliminary experiment in the use of systemic diagrams—closed concept clusters—designed to help students engage in meaningful learning. The Systemic Approach to Teaching and Learning We introduce now the basic ideas of the systemic approach to teaching and learning (SATL) as applied to chemistry. By “systemic” we mean an arrangement of concepts or issues through interacting systems in which all relationships between concepts and issues are made explicit to the learner using a concept map-like representation. In contrast with the usual strategy (3) of concept mapping, which involves estab-

lishing a static hierarchy of concepts, our approach strives to create a more-or-less dynamic system of an evolving “closed system of concepts”—a concept cluster—(Figure 2B shows an example) that stresses the interrelationships. Further, our use of the term “systemics” stresses recognition of the system of concepts that form the cluster of concepts under consideration, and the dynamic evolution of the concept cluster in the hands of the teacher. Systemics means the creation of closed-cluster concept maps for the purposes of helping students learn; systemics is an instructor-oriented tool and, hence, requires teacher and student materials to be created about the closed-cluster concept map strategy. Although we have produced and used a number of closed-cluster systemic maps on a variety of chemistryoriented subjects, we illustrate the processes with a module in organic chemistry that was used in an experiment to establish the efficacy of our approach. We contrast our systemic approach with the linear approach that is most often employed in science education. Diagrammatically, this contrast is expressed in Figure 2. A specific example of the systemic approach using the chemistry of organic acids and their derivatives is given in Figure 3. A Preliminary Experiment Using SATL Techniques We now describe a preliminary experiment designed to establish the efficacy of using SATL as a method to improve student learning of chemistry. This preliminary experiment was designed to include a wide spectrum of students in a sig-

A anhydrides Anhydrides

acids Acids

acid Acid chlorides Chlorides

esters Esters

amides

B acid Acid chlorides Chlorides

A concept

concept

concept

concept ammonolysis

B

ammonolysis

concept Concept

concept Concept

amides Amides

concept Concept

ammonolysis

PCl5

alcoholysis hydrolysis esters Esters

alcoholysis

acids Acids

(CH3CO)2O

concept Concept

anhydrides Anhydrides

Figure 2. Diagrammatic relationship between (A) a linear approach, and (B) the systemic approach in the presentation of concepts.

Figure 3. The presentation of the important concepts associated with (A) carboxyl chemistry as presented linearly, and (B) systemically.

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 9 September 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education

1079


nificant number of schools in two school districts. Although the systemic approach is conceptually simple, we had to provide appropriate training and materials for the teaching and administrative personnel involved who would do the teaching, observations, and monitoring, and who would provide feedback at different levels that would be the basis of the evaluation of the usefulness of the systemic approach in the chosen environment. This preliminary experiment required a great deal of different kinds of training at different levels of teaching and administration as well as the unswerving cooperation of the persons involved. The infrastructure for this study was superimposed on the usual pre-term activities involved with the standard instructional processes. More details about the research design of this study are available in the Supplemental Material found in this issue of JCE Online;W readers may also correspond with one of the authors (AFMF). Students (n = 429) in six secondary schools in the Cairo and Giza, Egypt, school districts who were studying organic chemistry were involved in this experiment. The subject matter was carboxylic acids and their derivatives, which appeared in the middle of the standard curriculum after hydrocarbons, alcohols, alkylhalides, and ketones, but before amines. The control group (159 students) was taught using the standard linear instructional approach (Figure 3A). A systemic-oriented module on carboxylic acid (Figure 3B) was created. See Note 1 in the Supplemental Material.W The SATL instruction that the treatment group (270 students) received was a module on carboxylic acids (Figure 3B). The teachers developed—led the evolution of—the closedconcept cluster (Figure 3B) for the carboxylic acids, using student input in a discussion format. Students were encouraged to discuss the evolving relationships of an unknown reaction—one that is a part of the previously devised closed cluster of reactions—to the developing closed cluster for the subject under consideration. Standard laboratory experiences were also included in the module used in this experiment. Our experimental design included schools (represented by teachers and senior teachers), educational districts (represented by local inspectors), educational zones (represented by general inspectors), and the Egyptian Ministry of Education (represented by experts) all working cooperatively (Figure 4). We had to make certain that all teaching and administra-

Schools Teachers, Senior Teachers

Educational Districts Educators Local Inspectors

Ministry of Education Experts

Educational Zones Educators General Inspectors

Figure 4. A representation of the interactions among the administrative and teaching elements for this experiment.

1080

tive groups that had a legitimate interest in the students at this level of instruction were involved in our experiment. Thirty people in the Cairo and Giza school districts (teachers, senior teachers, inspectors, and general inspectors) were trained in the SATL techniques (by AFMF) at Ain Shams University in Cairo as appropriate to their levels of responsibilities in these districts using suitable systemic-derived materials. The study involved eight experimental classes using SATL materials and the corresponding control classes using standard linear approaches (see Figure 3A). The study occurred over the period March 8–22, 1998. The subject matter was presented in eight lessons of 50 minutes each over the two-week period of the preliminary experiment. Pre- and post-tests as well as observations of affective behavior are the basis for our conclusions on the effectiveness of the SATL techniques. School district personnel were involved in the testing of student achievement and the assessment of this study in the following ways.

Conducting the Experiment School inspectors were charged with following this study in their schools and providing written documentation for each class—experimental and control—involved. The school inspectors were also involved with observations (on the experimental and control groups) that included the interaction of students and their teachers during the lessons, the performance of teachers in the experimental classrooms, recording comments of students and teachers during the lessons, meeting with teachers in the experimental classes to deal with problems that may have occurred during the lessons, evaluation of the lessons, and producing open-ended reports at the end of the study to the district administrators. These inspectors were experienced (25–33 years) employees who underwent training in the systemic method as it applies to the school district. There was, on average, approximately one inspector per school. General inspectors were also trained in the systemic method for the two districts involved—Cairo and Giza—and had 34–38 years of experience. The general inspectors were charged with daily school visitations during which time they met with the teachers involved in the study. General inspectors were able to deal with local obstacles that may have had the potential to affect and, possibly, invalidate our study. The general inspectors produced a daily report of their activities and their impressions of the progress of this study as seen from their vantage point. Three secondary school experts from the Ministry of Education, who also underwent training in systemics, were charged with producing daily reports on the implementation of the SATL modules; these experts were also charged with producing a final report to the Ministry of Education. Four teachers with 15–18 years of experience were involved in teaching the SATL approach in experimental classes, and eight teachers with 20–26 years of experience used the standard (linear) approach in control classes. The point of using teachers with this wide range of experience was our attempt to discern potential problems in applying SATL techniques with teachers of differing backgrounds. A two-day training session (a total of 18 hours consisting of a 12-hour day and a six-hour day) was held for all participants in this study. The training sessions included a discussion of the SATL



philosophy and its application using familiar (to the teachers) chemistry-oriented subjects, brainstorming sessions to engage the teacher–participants, sessions to generate teacher-oriented assessment questions consistent with the SATL approach, and numerous practice sessions. The teachers were involved in all 18 hours of training, whereas administrative personnel were not. Assessment Strategy Success of the SATL technique was defined in standard achievement terms, that is, scores on appropriate examinations. We understand the perceived deficiencies of achievement measures, indeed, we even agree with this general point of view; however, this is the measure of choice for those who use the linear approach and we are interested in a comparison of the latter with similar results using the SATL approach. The standard pre- and post-test strategy was employed. The questions in the pre- and post-tests were classified as questions that could be associated with the linear approach

to instruction (Figure 3A) and those associated with the SATL approach (Figure 3B). Within these two classes, the questions were divided into the subgroups identified as “memorization”, “understanding”, or “analysis” questions. In general, the question types can be described as multiple choice, completion, short answer, and structural formula creation. (Copies of the instruments and the question classification are presented in Note 2 of the Supplemental Material.W) An analysis of the pre-test and of the post-test appears in Tables 1 and 2. In the pre-test, the systemic questions (Q6–10) cover the prerequisite materials (from the previous teaching module on hydrocarbons, alcohols, alkyl halides, aldehydes, and ketones) for carboxylic acids and their derivatives for both the experimental and control groups. In the post-test, the systemic questions (Q6–10) are the same as in the pre-test, but the additional systemic questions (Q11–14) cover the carboxylic acids and their derivatives taught by SATL methods in the experimental group and by the traditional method in the control group.

Table 1. Analysis of the Pre-Test Questions Instruction Type

Kind of Question

Question Number

Point Value

Linear Approach

Memory

Q1–Q3

7

Linear Approach

Understanding

Q4

3

Linear Approach

Analysis

Q5

4

Systemic (SATL) Approach

Understanding

Q6

3


Synthesis

Q7

4


Synthesis

Q8

3


Understanding

Q9

2


Synthesis

Q10

4

Table 2. Analysis of the Post-Test Questions Instruction Type

Kind of Question

Question Number

Point Value

Linear Approach

Memory

Q1–Q3

27

Linear Approach

Understanding

Q4, Q16

25

Linear Approach

Analysis

Q5, Q15

26


Understanding

Q6, Q9

25


Synthesis

Q7–Q8, Q10, Q11–13

23


Analysis

Q14

24


1081


Analysis The raw data were analyzed with SPSS version 6 using a paired-sample t-test to decide whether two related samples are derived from populations with the same mean. Related, or paired, samples often result in experiments in which the same person is observed before and after an intervention to decide whether the intervention was successful. (See Note 3 of the Supplemental Material.W) The raw data—the student scores on pre- and post-tests, for individual questions, the subcategories, the main classification, and the total score—were compared on the following bases. •

Pre- and post-test results for each student with respect to linear and systemic questions and total scores.

•

Pre- and post-test results for experimental group and control group using linear, systemic, and total scores.

study are provided in the Supplemental Material.W We present here a summary of our conclusions based on pre- and posttests and the survey results.

Achievement The standard measures of achievement were obtained from pre- and post-tests. These tests involved a mixture of question types: multiple choice, short answer responses, and completion of systemic diagrams. The tests were scored by the teachers involved in our study using answer keys supplied by one of the authors. The same pre-treatment test and post-treatment test were administered to both the experimental group of students who we taught by SATL methods and the control group of students who were taught using conventional linear instructional methods. However, the pre-test was different from the post-test. Both tests incorporated systemic-type and lineartype questions; see Tables 1 and 2 for the profile of question types and kinds. Both the control and the experimental classes (Table 3) exhibited similar pre-intervention mean scores for linear questions—those kinds of questions that are typically asked in courses taught by traditional methods. This result might not

Overview of Results The details (questions on the pre- and post-tests, survey questions relating to the affective domain, results of these surveys, and the statistical analyses) of the assessment of this

Table 3. Student Scores on Tests by Type of Instructional Approach Pre-Test Scores Instructional Approach

Post-Test Scores

Group Type

Means

Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

Means

Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

Control (N = 159)

44.73

15.13

0.18

46.16

15.37

0.85

Experimental (N = 270)

37.11

18.84

0.51

91.32

13.72

0.31

Control (N = 159)

16.63

13.44

0.14

20.1

14.24

0.97

Experimental (N = 270)

12.05

11.42

0.12

82.88

14.56

0.75

——Linear

——Systemic

Table 4. Summary of Pre- and Post-Test Results Comparing Control and Experimental Groups Pre-Test Scores

Post-Test Scores

—Group Type

Means

Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

Means

Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

—Control (N = 159)

29.74

11.49

0.91

29.42

13.16

1.04

—Experimental (N = 270)

38.03

15.86

0.97

63.18

19.52

1.19

1082



be unexpected, since both cohorts were taught the previous (prerequisite) content materials by traditional methods. Postintervention mean test scores were higher for both groups of students, as might be expected for any learning environment. However, the mean scores for the experimental group were markedly higher than those for the control group. A similar pattern evolved for systemically-oriented questions and, perhaps as expected, the mean scores for the systemically-oriented questions were considerably more improved for the experimental group who were, of course, taught from the systemic point of view. Finally, students who were taught by instructors using SATL techniques were more successful on the final examination than students who were taught linearly, success being defined as achieving at least 50% on the final examination. By this measure, approximately 80% of the experimental group were successful, but only 10% of the control group reached this level of success.

Affective Elements Survey instruments (see Note 4 of the Supplemental MaterialW) completed by students in the experimental (SATL) classes indicated a positive perception that SATL methods improved their ability to view at least the chemistry in the experimental module (Figure 2B) from a more global perspective; indeed, we have some preliminary indications that the SATL approach affected the way students approached subsequent units (post carboxylic acids such as the chemistry of the amines that were taught traditionally) in the chemistry curriculum. In conversations with the students in the experimental group, we learned that many were applying the SATL techniques to their studies of chemistry subjects after the experimental subject—carboxylic acids. Survey results from a teacher’s perspective suggested that the elements of the training program were adequate for their needs, however, they felt they needed more time, in the form of workshops, to construct their own systemic materials and other modules. The SATL teachers of the experimental group were qualified to teach in other subject areas—chemistry and biology, or chemistry and physics—and, during debriefings, they expressed the opinion that they could create systemic-oriented teaching materials in biology and physics, as well.

Summary The preliminary evidence suggests that using the systemic approach (SATL methods) to learning provides students with a global view of the subject at hand; in the current example, the chemistry of organic acids and their derivatives. This instructional approach also recognizes the need for knowing individual parts of the system. On the basis of these results, full courses in organic chemistry—aliphatic chemistry, heterocyclic chemistry, and aromatic chemistry—have been developed and tested at several Egyptian universities and other universities in the Arabic-speaking world. Our intent also is to introduce SATL methods into laboratory instruction. The use of the SATL approach has been the subject of two conferences of Arabic-speaking nations. W

Supplemental Material

More details about the research design of this study are available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. See, for example, Havighurst, Robert J. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 1126–1129. 2. (a) Rickard, Lyman H. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 175–177. (b) See also various articles in “The Forum”, a feature that started in May 1992. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 403–404. 3. Russell, Arlene. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1286. 4. (a) Swiegers, Gerhard F.; Rheeder, Nico; Neth, Edward J. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 727–729. (b) Ketudat, Sippanondha. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 101–102. (c) Hondebrink, Jan G. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 963–965. 5. Ausubel, D. P. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning; Grune & Stratton: New York, 1963. 6. Ausubel, D. P. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View; Holt, Reinhard and Winston: New York, 1968. 7. (a) Novak, J. D.; Gowin, D. B. Learning How to Learn; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1984. (b) Novak, J. D. Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge; Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates: Mahwak, New Jersey, 1998 and references therein. 8. Stuart, H. A. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1985, 7, 73.


1083

Systemic Reform in Chemical Education: An International Perspective

Recommend Documents