Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
The Chemistry Teaching Fellowship Program: Developing Curricula and Graduate Student Professionalism Kris S. Kim,† Darius G. Rackus,† Scott A. Mabury, Barbora Morra, and Andrew P. Dicks* Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, 80 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H6, Canada S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: The Chemistry Teaching Fellowship Program (CTFP) is offered to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at the University of Toronto as an opportunity to undertake curriculum development and chemistry education research. Projects are run with faculty supervision and focus on designing new laboratory activities, lectures, tutorials, workshops, and assignments. Since its launch in 2002, many CTFP projects have been implemented in the departmental undergraduate curriculum, and several have been published in this Journal. The structure and history of the CTFP and its impact on undergraduate education and graduate student professional development is discussed in this paper, with a selection of projects highlighted as case studies. The CTFP provides a successful model of curriculum renewal that can easily be incorporated into other chemistry departments. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Curriculum, Laboratory Instruction, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Professional Development
■
INTRODUCTION Training to become an independent researcher is a primary goal shared by those pursuing graduate studies in STEM fields.1 This holds true even for those preparing themselves for an academic career as teaching faculty members. As part of their formal requirements, chemistry graduate students typically play critical roles as teaching assistants (TAs) in laboratory and tutorial environments, and as examination/assignment graders. These positions serve as opportunities for graduate students to develop their pedagogical skills, while undergraduates are exposed to small-group learning in more intimate settings outside the lecture room. Although providing important experiences as training for various teaching skills, TA responsibilities do not typically encompass the full range of duties required of a university or college course instructor. One of the concerns addressed in the 2012 American Chemical Society Commission report entitled “Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences” was that current educational options for graduate students do not provide sufficient preparation for their careers.2 In particular, the gap in proper training of teaching skills (beyond the experience gained through teaching assistantships) for those interested in pursuing academic employment was discussed. This gap ultimately impacts the initial teaching effectiveness of future faculty members. To deal with this issue, the ACS Commission report suggested that departments introduce a formal course or a summer program for graduate students. A number of schools provide science graduates with a chance to enhance their teaching abilities through support centers,3 certificate programs,4 and workshops focused on preparing future faculty.3,5,6 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
These initiatives offer training in best pedagogical practices across a broad spectrum of subjects. Examples of chemistryfocused training programs for graduate students include degrees in chemistry education at a number of United States institutions,7,8 and a few institutions offer graduate-level courses specifically addressing teaching in chemistry.9 However, becoming an effective instructor clearly goes beyond development of teaching skills, and also requires proficiency in the buildup and implementation of carefully designed curricula. The opportunity to participate in novel undergraduate curriculum development or redesign as a graduate researcher is unusual or unavailable at many colleges and universities. At the University of Toronto, a mechanism to provide contextualized pedagogical experience is offered via the Chemistry Teaching Fellowship Program (CTFP), which is an alternative approach to those adopted by other institutions.
■
THE CHEMISTRY TEACHING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Through the CTFP, “fellows” (graduate students and postdoctoral researchers) bolster their teaching experience by developing, implementing, and evaluating new initiatives under the direct supervision of a faculty mentor. Although the majority of the activity falls to the fellow, the mentor is engaged in the project from its outset (Figure 1). Received: September 15, 2016 Revised: January 21, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
encompass the development of laboratory experiments, tutorial activities, workshops, in-class demonstrations, lecture material, and other course resources. With the proposal, prospective fellows also include a descriptive breakdown of the allotted 45− 55 h within their project. Successful projects are announced in July, and new fellows then decide in which academic term (fall or winter) the project will be completed. Also at this time, fellows receive the first half of their awarded stipend. Once the project is completed, the fellow submits a report and statement of teaching philosophy to the undergraduate office, while the mentor submits a letter outlining the achievements of the fellow and describing the outcome of the project goals. Apart from developing resources, fellows may also implement material as if they were the course instructor (e.g., deliver lectures, conduct workshops, and perform in-class demonstrations). They are also encouraged to investigate the impact of their project on student learning and reflect on their development as chemistry educators. A recent addition to the CTFP is the opportunity for fellows to share their experiences through a departmental symposium the following summer. Upon completion of the program, fellows are awarded the remainder of their stipend (currently, students receive a total amount of CAD$2,000) and are recognized with an official notation on their academic record.
Figure 1. Flowchart outlining the relationship between the CTFP fellow, the faculty mentor, and the project activities.
The CTFP program was initiated during 2002 in the Department of Chemistry by one of the authors (S.A.M.) while Chair of Undergraduate Studies. Ongoing financial and administrative assistance is provided by the departmental undergraduate office. Since its inception, four projects per year have been supported on average, with an unprecedented 10 funded projects during the 2015/16 academic year. Funding is provided to fellows in the form of a stipend which is equivalent to 50 h of TA work. In our department, graduate students are funded through a combination of research assistantships, teaching assistantships, and scholarships (from internal and external funding sources). With regard to teaching assistantships, graduate students are typically assigned 200 h per academic year. Once selected, fellows may decide to accept this fellowship either as a top-up (i.e., the fellow would teach for a total of 250 h per academic year, with permission from their research supervisor) or as a reduction to their teaching obligations (i.e., the fellow would teach for a total of 150 h per academic year). To our knowledge, we are not aware of similar programs at other postsecondary institutions. The CTFP process begins each May when applications are solicited throughout the department (Scheme 1). After the initial call for proposals (Supporting Information), prospective fellows meet with potential faculty mentors to craft a project description which is due by the end of June. They are encouraged to reflect on their own learning experiences and research ideas before approaching a faculty member. Ideas have included the following: modifications to existing curricula, introduction of activities and materials from the fellows’ undergraduate experience, and entirely novel programming. Projects are essentially unrestricted in their nature and can
■
CTFP SAMPLE CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1: Introducing Retrosynthetic Concept Maps into Organic Chemistry
Introductory organic chemistry students regularly struggle with the process of designing an effective and efficient synthesis of complex molecules.10 This concern often stems from a lack of understanding of organic transformations, along with the requirement of higher order problem-solving and critical thinking skills. To address these issues, a CTFP project was launched to design and implement a new style of tutorial involving use of retrosynthetic concept maps (RCMs).11 This novel activity was incorporated in weekly tutorial sessions within a second-year undergraduate organic chemistry course (CHM247H: Introductory Organic Chemistry II) designed for life science students who require chemistry for their program, as well as students who have not decided on their final degree program. As such, CHM247H is offered to approximately 800 students over three semesters each academic year at the University of Toronto. The fellow created and implemented a concept mapping strategy within CHM247H tutorials that employed a retrosynthetic approach to problem solving. This was applied to a challenging weekly target molecule known as the
Scheme 1. Annual Timeline of the CTFP
B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
“Molecule of the Week” (MoW). The use of concept maps was chosen as a teaching tool within this project since they encourage students to make important connections between course topics. The tutorials involved the use of RCMs, which are diagrams that explore the different disconnections that are possible for the target MoW, until the provided starting materials are reached. The fellow developed weekly RCMs, each toward a progressively more difficult MoW, and these served as resources for course TAs. Each week, the RCM activities focused on the functional groups discussed in the lectures leading up to the tutorial session. This reinforced content understanding while encouraging students to make connections between topics. During the actual tutorial sessions, the course TAs created a multifaceted RCM toward the MoW based on student participation. Once the RCM was complete, the TAs discussed the feasibility of each possible disconnection with students considering molecular reactivity and chemo-, regio-, and stereoselectivity. This critical discussion equipped students with the tools required to design an effective and efficient formal retrosynthetic analysis based on the most suitable pathway. This retrosynthesis was then utilized as a guide for the final forward synthetic approach toward the MoW. Since its launch in 2015, over 1200 students have had the opportunity to participate in the RCM tutorial. This inquirybased approach allows students to explore multiple pathways, reagents, and mechanistic outcomes toward complex molecules. During the process of creating RCMs, students are engaged in meaningful learning as they make logical bond disconnections and analyze the utility of particular chemical transformations toward the MoW. This learning strategy also allows students to discover that there can be numerous synthetic pathways to target molecules which require the use of creative and critical thinking skills to identify the ideal route.
preparation for the game. This work also served to train the fellow in preparing and delivering formal lectures, which is an opportunity not often afforded to graduate students. The main focus of this CTFP project was in-class implementation of the Mercury Game itself. This had previously been a component of a fourth-year undergraduate environmental chemistry course, but was relocated into CHM210H. Playing the game is a way of highlighting the technical, political, and economic issues in global environmental treaty-making that teaches students about the role and challenges of science in policy-making. The game also informs students about the global mercury cycle and its impact in human lives, while providing them with chances to develop their communication skills. To assess the impact of the Mercury Game on student learning, pre- and postgame surveys were administered. The fellow was surprised that, as a result of the game, student understanding of the mercury cycle decreased. A possible explanation is that the game highlighted how little the students actually knew about the underlying chemistry and that there was more to learn. Student understanding of decision-making was reported to have increased. The fellow also noted that, during the game, students had difficulty understanding what constituted good argumentation and were unable to effectively refer to scientific evidence or uncertainty. These are skills that students should be equipped with in order to mature into responsible chemists, and the Mercury Game is a way of highlighting and addressing them. Since its first offering in 2012, the Mercury Game has been a continuous component of CHM210H. Over five years, 270 students have participated in this activity at the University of Toronto. Additionally, further adaptations to make the game fit better within the course were taken up by a subsequent CTFP fellow, who designed a tutorial to introduce students to basic concepts of science policy from a Canadian perspective. For participating students, the game provides opportunities for them to express their level of knowledge of course material in a manner different from traditional written assignments and tests, while TAs have the option to be more creative, especially when assigning roles to students and moderating discussions. As a whole, the open-ended dialogue provoked by the game allows for a more engaging experience for both students and TAs.
Case Study 2: Implementing the Mercury Game
A common challenge in teaching an undergraduate course is connecting content with a broader, “real-world” context. A recent CTFP project was designed to demonstrate the connection between science and policy in the context of a second-year environmental chemistry course (CHM210H: Chemistry of Environmental Change, Supporting Information). This single semester course is primarily taken by students in environmental chemistry specialist and minor programs, with an average enrollment of 60 students. CHM210H is designed to expose students to fundamental chemical processes of the Earth’s natural environment and changes induced by human activity. Unlike many projects which focus on one particular course component, the CTFP fellow prepared two lectures and a lesson plan for implementing a modified version of the Mercury Game in tutorial (Supporting Information), and a portion of their hours were dedicated to running the tutorial. The Mercury Game is an activity originally developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology that teaches students about the role of science in environmental policy-making.12 The lectures designed by the fellow highlighted important concepts that students needed to understand before participating in the Mercury Game (Supporting Information). Specifically, presentations on the Montreal Protocol and the biogeochemical cycle were developed and delivered. The lecture learning objectives were to expose students to concepts and issues in global environmental treaty-making as well as to introduce them to the biogeochemical cycle of mercury in
Case Study 3: Assessing Organic Reaction Efficiency and “Greenness”
Concepts of green chemistry and sustainability have been taught at the University of Toronto in a third-year organic chemistry course (CHM343H: Organic Synthesis Techniques) for a number of years.13 This is an upper-level, laboratoryintensive offering targeted at undergraduates enrolled in chemistry programs, with a typical enrollment of 30−40 students. Many organic reactions utilize large amounts of auxiliary materials (e.g., extraction solvents, column chromatography absorbents, and drying agents) that significantly contribute to the waste produced. However, this notion is rarely emphasized to students, who are usually taught to focus on simplistic efficiency metrics such as product yield. Several experiments embedded in this course have been developed inhouse by undergraduates14−18 and are framed around the central concept of catalysis as a greener approach to organic synthesis. These include certain reactions performed in greener solvents or sometimes in the absence of any solvent. In 2011, a CTFP project was developed to design a different type of C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
The most popular type of project conducted by fellows is a laboratory experiment (48%), likely due to a combination of reasons. For example, many graduate students regularly conduct hands-on practical work during their research and may feel most comfortable focusing on this format. In addition, the effort required to renew or replace existing experiments is significant, so faculty may wish to take advantage of the CTFP initiative in this manner to implement new laboratory activities. The remaining projects encompass lectures (16%), traditional tutorials (12%), assignments (12%), curriculum renewal, and course resources. Lecture and tutorial projects have generated new activities, revamped course material, or introduced new methods for practicing chemistry. Assignments are graded activities that are part of a laboratory or lecture component of a course. Given that preparing homework assignments is a key aspect of teaching at the postsecondary level, this is a valuable skill for fellows to develop. Curriculum renewal covers a broad spectrum of projects including online tutorials, in-class activities, and demonstrations in current courses. Finally, course resources developed by fellows include online modules, accessible articles, and models for students to use. Through the CTFP, fellows have the opportunity to contribute at all levels within the undergraduate program. Figure 3 shows the impact the CTFP has made at different course levels.
experiment focusing on quantifying the total amount of material required to perform a routine organic synthesis. In order to design this experiment, the CTFP fellow initially selected a literature synthesis from the Journal of Organic Chemistry that appeared to be superficially “green” with an atom economy of 95%.19 The multicomponent aza-Baylis-Hillman reaction procedure was then checked for reproducibility of product yield and purity. Following this, the fellow undertook detailed metric calculations (reaction mass efficiency and E factor) to quantify the amount of waste material produced by the reaction. These are green chemistry metrics that students had already been exposed to in the lecture component of CHM343H. In addition, a new metric was introduced in this experiment (process mass intensity, PMI) which has recently gained traction in the pharmaceutical industry.20,21 The fellow was responsible for writing the experiment up as it would appear in the CHM343H laboratory manual, providing troubleshooting tips for TAs, and devising postpractical questions to assess whether students were able to correctly perform the required calculations. This project was incorporated into the undergraduate curriculum in 2013, and since then over 140 undergraduates have successfully executed the reaction. A detailed analysis of written reports indicates that students are able to reflect on the featured metrics in terms of their individual strengths and weaknesses. Students are also noticeably capable of suggesting ways in which the reaction they personally performed might be made more sustainable. On the basis of their calculations, this involves ideas surrounding reducing the auxiliary use (either by recycling wash solvents or lowering the quantity that was initially added), or potentially making a greener solvent replacement (e.g., 2-methyltetrahydrofuran for dichloromethane). The impact and reach of this CTFP project is evidenced by recent publication of the experiment in this Journal.22
■
PROGRAM IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS A wide variety of projects have been undertaken through the CTFP that have impacted all levels of undergraduate courses (Supporting Information). Since its inception, 57 projects have been completed of which >95% have been undertaken by graduate students. There has been no noticeable difference between the quality of proposals and projects completed by postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. A breakdown by project type is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3. Distribution of CTFP projects by undergraduate course year.
The majority of courses influenced by the CTFP are upperyear ones (60%). A large number of projects have focused on translating current research methods and results to the undergraduate curriculum, and upper-year courses are often more appropriate to present these ideas. At the University of Toronto, first- and second-year courses are dominated and required by life science students, while upper-year students are predominantly enrolled in chemistry programs. Additionally, implementation of projects is often more straightforward in smaller classes, which are typical of more advanced courses. First-year courses see the least impact from the CTFP as they are taught by a wide range of faculty from across the department, but also have the most support from dedicated teaching faculty. Finding metrics to measure the effectiveness of the CTFP is challenging, due to the diverse nature of projects as well as the ever-changing landscape of undergraduate courses. Nevertheless, five projects have been published in the pedagogical literature22−26 and have been infused in courses at other
Figure 2. Distribution of completed CTFP projects by type. D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
impact of this symposium, it has become a mandatory component for the upcoming cohort of fellows. Externally, a website will be developed in order to advertise the program and its successes, while providing a platform to collect previous projects. This will create a valuable resource for other institutions interested in adapting the CTFP to their environment.
institutions, highlighting their novelty, quality, and merit. Fellows have also shared their projects through oral and poster presentations at local, national, and international conferences. Furthermore, certain initiatives have made a lasting impact within the department. For example, the Mercury Game has transitioned from being a pilot project to a permanent course component. A majority of laboratory experiments, if not currently utilized, are in the rotation of practical work offered for various courses.
■
CONCLUSION The CTFP is a robust solution to address the gap in skills of graduate students interested in an academic career. It provides experiences simulating some of the roles of a course instructor, and has had the added benefit of generating new materials to enhance undergraduate learning. Through this program, fellows have also had the opportunity to highlight their work in peerreviewed journals and at academic conferences. Because of its success, the CTFP at the University of Toronto serves as a model program for other institutions to partly fill a current gap in graduate student training.
■
TRANSFERABILITY AND FUTURE PLANS The CTFP has been operating at the University of Toronto for the past 14 years. Over its lifetime, the impact of the program on chemistry undergraduate learning and graduate student development has not been significantly promoted internally or externally. At its core, the CTFP relies on the relationship between interested students and active faculty mentors. At primarily undergraduate institutions, the program could be adapted for senior undergraduate students who are interested in chemistry education. Another key component of the CTFP is its distinction from the regular teaching duties of teaching assistants. Projects provide opportunities to create new materials with lasting impact, and have the potential to scale depending on the involvement of the faculty mentor. Where resources are limited, smaller projects should still retain an element of experience beyond ordinary teaching assistant duties. On the other hand, the program is not designed to replace the work of an instructor teaching undergraduate courses. Both faculty mentors and fellows must document the work that they have done through the CTFP. At the University of Toronto, this takes the form of a formal report and a mentor letter addressed to the Chair of Undergraduate Studies. These components are essential for recording the impact on undergraduate education and of the program on the fellow. When this program is adopted at other institutions, concessions can be made on the requirement for the submission of a formal report. We propose at a minimum that a presentation to the department outlining the fellow’s activity would be sufficient in documenting and disseminating the fellow’s work and findings. Another suggestion is that fellows record their experiences throughout the project in the form of a journal or blog. A considerable aspect of the CTFP’s success has been through continuing departmental administrative support. Having an administrator oversee the call for proposals, organize submissions, and monitor student progress has kept the program running smoothly since its inception. Additionally, having financial backing is an important way to acknowledge fellows for their contributions to undergraduate learning. The funds provided are chosen to be commensurate with the amount of work required and to respect the fellow’s commitment away from other responsibilities. A fellow’s involvement in the CTFP reduces the number of obligatory teaching contract hours they may have as a part of their overall funding package so as not to impact their research work. Reflecting on the CTFP successes and considering the future, the authors see a need for increased publicity both within the University of Toronto and the broader chemistry community. Internally, two authors (K.S.K. and D.G.R.) have established a forum for fellows to share their experiences with the department in the form of a symposium (Scheme 1). This has resulted in an increase in program awareness, culminating in a rise in the number of submitted proposals. Due to the
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709. Sample call for proposals; titles of previous projects; the fellow’s proposal, report, and teaching philosophy for Case Study 2; lecture slides for the Mercury Game (PDF)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Andrew P. Dicks: 0000-0001-5456-0212 Author Contributions †
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the Department of Chemistry undergraduate office for providing ongoing funding for the Chemistry Teaching Fellowship Program. Armando Marquez is particularly acknowledged for assistance in providing archived materials.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Kuniyoshi, C.; Sostaric, J.; Kirchhoff, M. American Chemical Society Graduate Student Survey 2013. www.acs.org/content/dam/ acsorg/education/educators/reports/2013-ACS-Graduate-StudentSurvey-Report.pdf (accessed Jan 2017). (2) Banholzer, W. F.; Barton, J. K.; Bent, S. F.; Breslow, R.; Calabrese, G.; Confalone, P. N.; Doyle, M. P.; Faulkner, L. R.; Fox, M. A.; Francisco, J. S.; Houston, P.; Mirkin, C. A.; Overman, L. E.; Rawlings, H. R.; Richmond, G.; Scheller, R. H.; Shulman, J. I.; Stang, P. J.; Tirrell, M.; Whitesides, G. M.; Wrighton, M. S.; Kirchhoff, M. M. Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences: Full Report of an American Chemical Society Presidential Commission. www.acs. org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/acs-presidentialgraduate-education-commission-full-report.pdf (accessed Jan 2017). E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
(3) Examples of university teaching support centers: (a) University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching: Preparing Future Faculty. www.crlt.umich.edu/programs/pff (accessed Jan 2017). (b) University of Toronto Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation. http://teaching.utoronto.ca (accessed Jan 2017). (4) Examples of graduate teaching certificate programs: (a) Texas A&M Department of Educational Administration & Human Resource Development: Certificate in College Teaching. http://eahr.tamu.edu/ degrees-and-programs/graduate-certificates/certificate-collegeteaching (accessed Jan 2017). (b) West Virginia University Teaching and Learning Commons: Graduate Education and Life. http:// tlcommons.wvu.edu/GraduateAcademy/ UniversityTeachingCertificate (accessed Jan 2017). (5) French, D. P. What They Don’t Know. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2006, 35 (7), 62−63. (6) Austin, A. E.; Campa, H., III; Pfund, C.; Gillian-Daniel, D. L.; Mathieu, R.; Stoddart, J. Preparing STEM Doctoral Students for Future Faculty Careers. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2009, 2009 (117), 83− 95. (7) Mason, D. A Survey of Doctoral Programs in Chemical Education in the United States. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (2), 158−160. (8) United States Chemistry Education Research Graduate Programs. http://chemistry.miamioh.edu/bretzsl/cer/gradprograms (accessed Jan 2017). (9) Examples of effective instructional teaching practices through graduate-level chemistry courses: (a) Richards-Babb, M.; Penn, J. H.; Withers, M. Results of a Practicum Offering Teaching-Focused Graduate Student Professional Development. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (11), 1867−1873. (b) Knutson, C. C.; Jackson, M. N., Jr.; Beekman, M.; Carnes, M. E.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, D. C.; Keszler, D. A. Mentoring Graduate Students in Research and Teaching by Utilizing Research as a Template. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (2), 200− 205. (c) Tofan, D. C. Improving Chemistry Education by Offering Salient Technology Training to Preservice Teachers. A Graduate-Level Course on Using Software to Teach Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (9), 1060−1062. (d) Gerdeman, R. D.; Russell, A. A.; Eikey, R. A. A Course to Prepare Future Faculty in Chemistry: Perspective from Former Participants. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (2), 285−291. (e) BondRobinson, J.; Rodriques, R. A. B. Catalyzing Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Laboratory Teaching through Design Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (2), 313−323. (f) Mazlo, J.; Kelter, P. Graduate-Level Course for Successful Class Strategies: Preparing Graduate Students for the Next Step. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (9), 1175−1177. (10) Bode, N. E.; Flynn, A. B. Strategies of Successful Synthesis Solutions: Mapping, Mechanisms, and More. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 593−604. (11) Le, C.; Morra, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, submitted for publication. (12) Stokes, L. C.; Selin, N. E. The Mercury Game: Evaluating a Negotiation Simulation that Teaches Students about Science-Policy Interactions. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2016, 6 (3), 597−605. (13) Dicks, A. P.; Batey, R. A. ConfChem Conference on Educating the Next Generation: Green and Sustainable Chemistry − Greening the Organic Curriculum: Development of an Undergraduate Catalytic Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (4), 519−520. (14) Edgar, L. J. G.; Koroluk, K. J.; Golmakani, M.; Dicks, A. P. Green Chemistry Decision-Making in an Upper-Level Undergraduate Organic Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (7), 1040−1043. (15) Koroluk, K. J.; Skonieczny, S.; Dicks, A. P. Microscale Catalytic and Chemoselective TPAP Oxidation of Geraniol. Chem. Educ. 2011, 16, 307−309. (16) Aktoudianakis, E.; Chan, E.; Edward, A. R.; Jarosz, I.; Lee, V.; Mui, L.; Thatipamala, S. S.; Dicks, A. P. Comparing the Traditional with the Modern: A Greener, Solvent-Free Dihydropyrimidone Synthesis. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (6), 730−732. (17) Aktoudianakis, E.; Chan, E.; Edward, A. R.; Jarosz, I.; Lee, V.; Mui, L.; Thatipamala, S. S.; Dicks, A. P. Greening Up” the Suzuki Reaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (4), 555−557.
(18) Stabile, R. G.; Dicks, A. P. Two-Step Semi-Microscale Preparation of a Cinnamate Ester Sunscreen Analog. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (10), 1488−1491. (19) Balan, D.; Adolfsson, H. Selective Formation of α-Methylene-βamino Acid Derivatives through the Aza Version of the Baylis-Hillman Reaction. J. Org. Chem. 2001, 66 (19), 6498−6501. (20) Jimenez-Gonzalez, C.; Ponder, C. S.; Broxterman, Q. B.; Manley, J. B. Using the Right Green Yardstick: Why Process Mass Intensity is Used in the Pharmaceutical Industry to Drive More Sustainable Processes. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2011, 15 (4), 912−917. (21) Kjell, D. P.; Watson, I. A.; Wolfe, C. N.; Spitler, J. T. Complexity-Based Metric for Process Mass Intensity in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2013, 17 (2), 169−174. (22) Gómez-Biagi, R. F.; Dicks, A. P. Assessing Process Mass Intensity and Waste via an aza-Baylis-Hillman Reaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (11), 1938−1942. (23) Koroluk, K. J.; Jackson, D. A.; Dicks, A. P. The Petasis Reaction: Microscale Synthesis of a Tertiary Amine Antifungal Analog. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 796−798. (24) Mundle, S. O. C.; Guevara Opiñska, L.; Kluger, R.; Dicks, A. P. Investigating the Mechanism of Heteroaromatic Decarboxylation Using Solvent Kinetic Isotope Effects and Eyring Transition-State Theory. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (6), 1004−1006. (25) Cheung, L. L. W.; Styler, S. A.; Dicks, A. P. Rapid and Convenient Synthesis of the 1,4-Dihydropyridine Privileged Structure. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (6), 628−630. (26) Sues, P. E.; Cai, K.; McIntosh, D. F.; Morris, R. H. Template Effect and Ligand Substitution Methods for the Synthesis of Iron Catalysts: A Two-Part Experiment for Inorganic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (2), 378−381.
F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00709 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
