The State of Chemical Education: Where Are We and Where Are We

Patricia W. Bedard

Robert L. Lichter Arthur L. Utz with graduate students.

Madeleine Jacobs

John B. Hunt

Glenn T. Seaborg

J. Emory Howell

W. T. Lippincott

Sylvia A. Ware

Stanley G. Smith

Tamar Y. Susskind Jacquelyn Gervay

William R. Robinson

1518

Lucy and Dwaine Eubanks

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 12 December 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

The State of Chemical Education: Where Are We and Where Are We Headed?

As the celebrations of our 75th year draw to a close, we wind up with a special section titled The State of Chemical Education: Where Are We and Where Are We Headed? We asked this question of a group as diverse as our readership, shown here and on the facing page. Their responses follow.

Paul H. L. Walter

Following these essays is a synopsis of Journal history, written by some of those individuals who have been a part of it. A reading list pointing to articles about our history concludes this section. Fitzgerald B. Bramwell

Richard N. Zare Robert F. Watson

Helen M. Free

Ann Cartwright

Jerry A. Bell

J. J. Lagowski

William F. Kieffer

J. Dudley Herron

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 75 No. 12 December 1998 • Journal of Chemical Education

1519

Chemical Education Today

The State of Chemical Education

A Long Career in Chemistry and Education by Glenn T. Seaborg

Glenn T. Seaborg has had a long, distinguished career in science, education, and public service. He is University Professor of Chemistry, Associate Director-at-Large of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Chairman of the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been Chancellor of the Berkeley campus, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and winner of the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (with E. M. McMillan). His work with the Lawrence Hall of Science and his many publications in this Journal attest to his strong efforts on behalf of chemical education. I began my role as a teacher of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, nearly 60 years ago. My broader concern with the teaching of science at the pre-college level and the need in today’s high-technology society to provide an education in science for the workforce and for the attainment of scientific literacy by the general public began nearly 50 years ago. I shall summarize here the high points of my involvement with the attainment of these objectives in science and related education. Since the 1950s, I have emphasized in talks in public forums the need for improvement of the teaching of science, the need to interest young people in careers in science, the impact of science on society, the necessity for greater scientific literacy among the workforce and the general public, and the need for scientists to understand social problems and the humanities and to help bridge the gap between C. P. Snow’s “two cultures” (humanities and science). My talks stressing the importance and need for science education were augmented with the advent of Sputnik (October 1957). I served (1959–1960) on the Advisory Committee on New Educational Media at the HEW Office of Education as part of the implementation of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. I also filmed lectures for two national television “Continental Classroom” college programs— one in physics (January 1959) and another in chemistry (September 1959). In addition, I served on the Board of Directors of the National Educational Television and Radio Center (1958–1964, 1967–1970); this organization was the forerunner to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and Cable Network News (CNN). In 1959 I was appointed to the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) and shortly after that undertook the chairmanship of its committee to study and make a report (in December 1960) on “Scientific Progress, the Universities and the Federal Government”, which became known as the “Seaborg Report”. Perhaps the most famous of the report’s recommendations were the statements that it should 1520

…basic research and education of scientists go best together.

be the basis of general policy that basic research and education of scientists go best together, that federal support for basic research and graduate education should be flexibly increased so as to support excellence where it already exists, and that new centers of outstanding work should be encouraged. I also served (1960–1961) on the National Science Board, which served as a guide for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its support of education in science; and on the NSF Advisory Council on College Chemistry (1962– 1967). I had the privilege of serving on the Commission on the Humanities (1962–1965), whose report played an important role in the establishment of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. From 1959 to 1974, I served as the chairman of the steering committee for the Chemical Education Material Study (CHEM Study) which developed for high school chemistry a widely used textbook, laboratory manual, teacher’s guide, motion pictures for classroom use, motion pictures for teacher training, and much supporting material. The wide adoption and use of these advanced materials made it possible to upgrade much of the teaching of college chemistry. From 1961 to 1971, I served as chair of the Atomic Energy Commission and promoted its strong program of support for pre-college and college science education. I served as a member of the National Commission on Excellence in Education which issued the famous report “A Nation at Risk”, which was presented to President Ronald Reagan on April 26, 1983. This hard-hitting report had a substantial impact on the national reform movement toward improving the status of pre-college education, especially in science and math education. As founder and longtime chairman of the Lawrence Hall of Science, I have promoted its effective program in devising pre-college science curricula and training teachers. I served for 30 years (1966–1995) as chair of Science Service, the institution which sponsors the annual Science Talent Search; the annual International Science and Engineering Fair; and publishes Science News, which brings to its readers a rapid overview of all science and of public issues of science in a compact, well-written form. More recently (January 1998), I was persuaded by California Governor Pete Wilson to serve as Chairman of the Science Committee of the California Commission on the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards for grades kindergarten through grade 12. Our aim is to produce rigorous grade-by-grade academic standards in science which can serve as a model for the entire nation.



Perspectives from a Newly Begun Career by Jacquelyn Gervay

Jacquelyn Gervay is an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; [email protected].

I began teaching sophomore organic chemistry using the same format that I found successful in graduate courses. By all accounts, it was a dismal failure.

When I decided to pursue an academic career at a Research I Institution, I imagined that I would be responsible for furthering the education of future chemists. At the time, this seemed a tremendous responsibility. However, I did have a clear idea of what an organic chemist should know in order to be successful. I was heavily steeped in the culture of organic chemistry. This included knowing name reactions, identifying classic organic syntheses and the advances they represented, and having a firm ability to rationalize chemical outcomes by sound mechanistic reasoning. Using my mentors as a model, I felt ready to begin. In the first two years of my academic tenure, I taught graduate level organic synthesis and advanced organic synthesis and was pleased with the outcome. I assessed the success of those courses through examinations as well as student performance on departmental cumulative and oral exams. This experience built within me the belief that rigorous course work, in conjunction with original research, prepares our graduate students well for a career in chemistry. My next task was to prepare our undergraduates for successful graduate careers. I began teaching sophomore organic chemistry using the same format that I found successful in graduate courses. By all accounts, it was a dismal failure. Out of nearly 300 students enrolled in the course, more than half of the class dropped by mid-semester. Less than 100 students passed the course, and even fewer actually gained an appreciation for the importance of organic chemistry. In my search for explanations, I found the course evaluations illuminating. It was evident that I was teaching undergraduate students as if they were all going to be professional chemists. Analysis of the student population in my section revealed that only 7% of the students were chemistry majors. Clearly new approaches were required if my teaching of undergraduate organic chemistry was going to be effective. Instead of imagining my students as future UCLA or Yale graduate students or professional chemists, I pictured them in the role of a United States senator voting on NIH and NSF budget increases. I wanted them to understand the relevance of research in chemistry, to believe in its importance, and to support its growth. I sought assistance in the art of making science relevant from local high school teachers. They taught me how to maintain a high level of interest through the use of the popular press, and to simultaneously establish a high standard of course rigor. During the past three years, my research assis-

tants and I have benefited greatly from their advice (1). But still, I remain faced with two persistent questions: “What should I teach?” and “How can it best be taught?” My experience is not unique. Chemical education literature reveals that teaching chemistry to the non-chemist has always been one of our most pressing challenges. In fact, this issue was examined 75 years ago at the Journal ’s inception. It was proposed that chemical educators should reach out to the public to show how chemists participate in important areas such as dyes, petroleum, rubber, food, and nutrition (2). Today the role of chemists in the development of new drugs to treat AIDS, new materials to create faster computers, and the explorations of whether or not there was once life on Mars provides mechanisms for outreach. In 1924, underlying the “outreach” theme was the perceived need to establish and maintain a certain level of rigor. Various universities were polled on the topics they presented in undergraduate courses and the methods they used to teach them (3). The development of electronic theory was in full bloom, yet some universities were reluctant to include it in their courses. It wasn’t clear that the non-chemist had to understand electronic theory in order to grasp certain chemical facts. Besides, 72% of those polled felt they were already teaching more theory than the students needed to know. Similarly, we are hardpressed today to find the class time to present chemistry’s most exciting and recent discoveries while still covering the basic principles. Furthermore, we have yet to establish what fundamental level of understanding is required for our students to appreciate important advances such as the use of combinatorial chemistry in drug design or genetic engineering in the production of new synthetic materials. Compounding these problems is the question of how we can most effectively reach our audience. In 1924, the radio had just been introduced as a new medium for communication, and, virtually overnight, it had transformed hundreds of thousands of people into regular listeners. One truly novel suggestion was to use the radio “ether” to teach America chemistry through a series of lectures that emphasized chemistry in everyday life (4 ). It was important to recognize the limitations of this new medium as listeners could easily tune out. Therefore, the lectures were carefully designed, almost in a sound bite fashion, in order to maintain listener interest. One can easily draw parallels continued on page 1522


1521



A Newly Begun Career in Chemistry and Education by Arthur L. Utz

Arthur L. Utz is an assistant professor of chemistry at Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155; [email protected]. My perspective on the state of chemical education is shaped by my experience as an assistant professor in the chemistry department at Tufts University. I have found the field of chemical education to be alive with dedicated practitioners, vigorous debate, and creative innovation. Still, significant challenges remain. Students enter our curriculum with ever-changing levels of preparation and styles of learning. Scientific literacy among the general population is low, and public perception of what science is, how it works, and what it can contribute to the common good is tainted by misconceptions and misinformation. This brief perspective documents the rewards I have discovered during my first four years as a member of the chemical education community and outlines some of the challenges I believe we face in the upcoming years. As a junior faculty member, I have begun to discover the rich opportunities for personal reward and challenge awaiting those embarking on a career in chemical education. I was attracted to an academic career by the opportunity to

work with students in the classroom and to establish an independent research program that introduces students to the frontiers of scientific inquiry. Blending teaching and research activities has increased my appreciation for the interrelation of various areas of science and has strengthened both my insight into research problems and my ability to convey concepts to students. All these activities have been tremendously gratifying and fulfilling experiences. The most unanticipated sources of stimulation and professional growth, though, have arisen from the special challenges and opportunities associated with my role as a chemical educator. Societal, cultural, and technological influences continually shape and alter the way students assimilate information. For example, the recent explosion of available media for communication and information delivery has fundamentally altered the way many of our incoming students seek and attain an understanding of new knowledge. As educators, we face a choice—we can continue to teach, using the methods and technologies that worked when we were students, or we can build on the learning strategies that today’s students bring to the classroom. I believe our most effective tack is to uncover approaches to education that speak to students in a familiar voice, yet still convey the rigor and precision of scientific thought. While society and culture do influence how students learn, the preparation and skills that students bring to col-

Perspectives from a Newly Begun Career, Gervay continued from page 1521

between the radio ether of 1924 and today’s ethernet, which has transformed our ability to communicate in a three-dimensional medium across the World Wide Web. Here too, it is important to recognize the limitations of this new medium, while taking full advantage of its potential. It is fascinating to me that with all the advances in pure chemistry and its broad application in our culture, the current challenges in chemical education are not far from where they were 75 years ago. As educators, we are still faced with the task of introducing the “culture” of chemistry to a population that has little awareness of how it impacts upon their life. As chemists, we maintain a deep respect and appreciation for the fundamental principles and theory that our science is built upon. We feel compelled to uphold a certain level of rigor, and herein lies the challenge for the future. As a community of chemical educators, we must establish an acceptable teaching standard that holds true to our values.

1522

At the same time, we must maintain flexibility in our methods of instruction. We must find not only the time to effectively reach out to the non-chemist but also a mechanism to enroll them in the process of relating to the culture of chemistry. It is my great hope that as a community of educators, we will find a way to bridge the gap between popular culture and chemical culture that has persisted for more than 75 years. After all, it is critically important that not only our future senators appreciate chemistry and deem it important, but that their constituents do as well. Literature Cited 1. Parrill, A. L.; Gervay, J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 1, 5. Parrill, A. L.; Gervay, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 329, 1141. 2. Slosson, E. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 3. 3. Cornog, J.; Colbert, J. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 5. 4. Killeffer, D. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 43.



lege also hinge on their science and math training at the primary and secondary levels. Outreach activities that bridge the gap between pre-college and post-secondary education offer the opportunity to shape the skills and learning tools that students bring to college. In particular, college faculty engaged in chemical research are in a unique position to transfer research-based methods of learning into a classroom setting and help other educators integrate these highly effective methods into their own curriculum. Exciting new discoveries from the research community continue to offer educators a powerful tool for capturing student interest and providing relevance to course material. The increasing specialization of science presents us with a new challenge in this regard; it is increasingly difficult to keep up with and appreciate the most exciting and significant developments in fields far removed from our own area of specialization. In order to best exploit research innovations in the classroom, we must find effective ways to communicate these breakthroughs to our colleagues whose expertise lies in other chemical disciplines. There is a growing awareness that chemical education should include a component of professional development. At Tufts, we are actively involved in weaving training in teamwork, communication skills, management strategies, and proper ethical conduct into our existing laboratory and classroom environments. Strategies that effectively and efficiently

I believe our most effective tack is to uncover approaches to education that speak to students in a familiar voice, yet still convey the rigor and precision of scientific thought.

provide such training, without further burdening an already full curriculum, will be the key to providing students with training in these important areas. Finally, the responsibilities of chemical educators toward society do not end with the tuition-paying students who populate our classes. Sound governmental policy decisions require not only trained scientists, but also informed government leaders and a technologically literate electorate. It is for this reason that outreach activities designed to improve communication between scientists and government leaders, citizens, and educators are crucially important to our future. Clearly, the challenges that face chemical education today are many, but I am optimistic that the many dedicated and innovative chemical educators of today and tomorrow will continue to find creative solutions to the many challenges that confront us during the next seventyfive years of the Journal ’s history.

A Student’s Perspective by Patricia W. Bedard

Do not follow where the path may lead—go instead, where there is no path and leave a trail. Eli Fritz Patricia Ann Mabrouk (Pam), my friend and undergraduate mentor at Northeastern University, gave this quotation to me. It was because Pam followed this philosophy herself that my recent undergraduate experience was so very rewarding. I would like to dedicate this essay to Pam and others like her, who tirelessly share their enthusiasm and knowledge of chemistry with others, demonstrating what an exciting and rewarding endeavor chemistry can be. To continue the metaphor begun above, Pam has blazed a trail, marked it well, and encouraged others to use it as a starting point. It is in the realm of women as chemical educators, mentors, and role models that I personally have seen the most change and in which I hope to see continued growth. I began my undergraduate studies twenty years ago as a neurobiology major but withdrew before completing the de-

After completing her undergraduate studies at Northeastern University in June, Patty Bedard accepted a position in industry with Genetics Institute. She lives in Mansfield, Massachusetts; [email protected].

gree program. This summer, I finally received my Bachelor of Science in biochemistry, magna cum laude, from Northeastern University. My primary reason for withdrawing from college years ago was financial, but I still remember the feelings of uncertainty about my choice to study science. I have always loved biology and chemistry, but certain negative stereotypes loomed heavily in my mind. I envisioned myself, continued on page 1524


1523


The State of Chemical Education A Student’s Perspective, Bedard continued from page 1523

unmarried and working alone in a windowless lab. This was not how I wanted to spend my life, and there were no role models at that time to prove otherwise. Every one of my biology, chemistry, physics, and calculus professors, at both junior college and university level, was male. A quick aside: I do not wish to denigrate any of my male professors; most of them have been exceptionally good teachers, especially at Northeastern. The point I wish to convey is that it is difficult to feel as if you belong to a society or a discipline when no one in that society is like you. It takes courage and strength to go where there is no path. I worked in various industries after withdrawing from school. None of the jobs were particularly science-related until I started work as a child care instructor. I received my first taste of the joys and the rigors of teaching in this position. Since enthusiasm is generally contagious, the day care owners encouraged us to teach what we knew and what excited us. Science seemed my most likely choice. I worked alone on curriculum development because most of the instructors, even those working temporarily while awaiting permanent public school positions, did not particularly care for science. Sadly, they viewed it as inaccessible. I, on the other hand, enjoyed teaching science to children, and most of the children eagerly mirrored my enthusiasm for the discipline. It felt good to share in the discovery process with so many eager minds. We formulated questions and hypotheses and developed methodologies. Sometimes we found answers in books; sometimes we discovered things first hand, and other times our questions and hypotheses were unresolved. I would later learn that we were using our own version of small group and discovery-based learning. I find both of these styles of teaching and learning very effective from the standpoint of a teacher and a student. I loved teaching, but even the most academic day care setting has limitations. I decided to enter the biochemistry program at Northeastern University. My experience at Northeastern was very different from when I first began my studies. This time over half of my biology professors, one physics professor, and two chemistry professors were women. Every one of them was happy, enthusiastic, professional, and eager to share their experience and knowledge. Oddly enough, a

1524

...it is difficult to feel as if you belong to a society or a discipline when no one in that society is like you.

young classmate confided in me the same fears I had years ago of working alone in a walled-off lab. It is amazing how difficult it is to dispel certain stereotypes. However, this time I did not have far to look to show her examples of rewarding scientific positions for women, each one with plenty of teamwork and personal interaction. More examples arose at my cooperative education positions and at the American Chemical Society meeting I attended in Dallas. It is increasingly common at Northeastern University for undergraduate students to work on research projects with faculty. I was fortunate to not only work on an undergraduate research project with Pam Mabrouk, but to also learn from her how to submit that research for publication and present it as a research poster at an American Chemical Society meeting. While attending the ACS meeting in Dallas, I was able to take advantage of the latest career resource information available. This, in turn, led to my securing an excellent position in industry at Genetics Institute. I now work in a vibrant R&D lab and love it. There is plenty of interaction on all levels, teamwork, mentoring, academic presentations, and a very social lunch hour. Genetics Institute (GI) also has a science program, taught by GI volunteers in neighboring schools. I may be teaching again sooner than I thought. So from my perspective, the state of chemical education is better than it has ever been and has given me much more than I could have dreamed. There are still many people who find science intimidating or inaccessible, and I feel there are still too few women chemistry professors. However, I remain hopeful that chemical educators, like Pam Mabrouk, will continue to make great strides in finding ways to reach an ever larger and more diverse group of students. I, myself, hope to remain committed to sharing my knowledge and experience with others, especially young women, in the same way Pam has so freely shared hers with me.



Beyond the White Male Stereotype by Ann Cartwright

Ann Cartwright is the department chair at San Jacinto College, Central Campus, Division of Science and Mathematics, Pasadena, TX 77501-2007; acartw@ central.sjcd.cc.tx.us. When I first started this article, my inclination was to present the numbers of women and minorities obtaining degrees in chemistry; the numbers of women and minorities in ACS; and the numbers of women and minorities that work in the area of chemistry, specifically chemical education. These figures were to be from the past and the present in order to show how those practicing chemistry have changed over the years. For example, ACS membership for women has increased from 3% to 20% over the past 75 years (1). Similar data were unavailable for minorities. Regardless of what progress the numbers indicate, the fact is there are groups such as an ACS Women Chemists Committee, an ACS Committee on Minority Affairs, a National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers, and a Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science. The existence of these groups indicates to me that women and minorities have not been truly integrated into the profession of chemistry. If women and minorities were not in need of their own support groups (to provide recruitment, mentoring, etc.) and if we didn’t have to still talk about the need for diversity, then we would truly have arrived. But yes, the chemistry profession has come a long way. However, data stand out as reminders that there is not enough representation of all groups based on the U.S. population. Minorities are now 25% of the population (2) but obtained 6% of the doctoral degrees in chemistry in 1996; if Asian Americans are omitted. In that same year, women obtained 30% of the doctoral degrees in chemistry (3), up from 10% 75 years ago (4). A study in 1993 of chemistry faculty at ACS-approved schools showed 11.7% women; minorities were not included in the study (5). All faculty in the physical sciences in four-year colleges and universities in 1995 were found to be 4.5% minority (excluding Asian Americans) and 12.5% women (3). No one could argue that there is not underrepresentation of these groups. It is no longer a question of what is right. It is a fact that these very groups are needed in the sciences. They must be recruited. According to many estimates (6, 7), our workforce in the next century will face a severe shortage of workers with training in the sciences. A large segment of people entering the workforce for the first time will be minorities and women (6). We must make a career in science, and chemistry in particular, accessible and desirable.

When I was young, I knew someone who believed I could do anything, and she made me believe it too.

Since our profession realized that diversity is not only right, but desirable, why has recruitment not always met with success? I do not presume to speak for all women, and I certainly can’t speak for minorities. I took my first course in chemistry in high school with a woman as the teacher; I thought nothing strange in the fact that a chemist was a woman. I was challenged by the course in a way no other course had challenged me. I then majored in chemistry in college. I never considered how the profession might welcome me as a woman or how it welcomed minorities. That was in the early sixties, and there were few females in classes and no minorities that I recall. The only hint that the males objected was in pointed comments that the only reason I was doing better than most of the males in the class was that I memorized everything and didn’t really understand—the way they did with their C grades. I examined my knowledge and abilities and decided the assessment was largely incorrect. By the time I started graduate school, it was a given that women were not always welcome in chemistry. As a point against us, it was said we could not move gas cylinders and carry fivegallon bottles of distilled water. Probably the discrimination against minorities was more insidious. When I spoke with all the graduate faculty in my area of interest, as we were required to do, I looked at the makeup of the research group as much as the research itself. I did not want to use up energy being a pioneer and attempting to change attitudes about the abilities of women or the abilities of those not in the stereotypic mold. There were rumors that some professors would not take women graduate students. The research advisor I chose had a heterogeneous group of men, women, and minorities that spoke of his openness to diversity. This was at a time when there were no women faculty members in the department. Now there are not only women faculty members in that same department, but also the chair is a woman. Yes, the profession has come a long way in how women and minorities are welcomed. Why was I able to carry on in a profession that, frankly, did not welcome me thirty years ago? I have a theory. When I was young, I knew someone who believed I could do anything, and she made me believe it too. Years ago, I read that the reason some children from deprived backgrounds go on to achieve when others do not is because the achiever had someone who let them know they were special. We in the chemistry profession can help if we want underrepresented groups to consider careers in the sciences; we can be part of continued on page 1526


1525



View From My Benchtop by Fitzgerald B. Bramwell

Fitzgerald B. Bramwell is Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0032; phone: 606/257-1663; [email protected]. Several months ago, with mixed emotions, I accepted the invitation to express my perceptions about “chemistry’s white male stereotype” for the diamond jubilee of the Journal of Chemical Education. On one hand, I felt this invitation would be a sparkling opportunity to use my experiences as an industrial and as an academic chemist to voice my opinions on the need for systemic change. Changes in mentoring, educational structure, and the dissemination of information were among the areas which I felt needed improvement. On the other hand, I felt, “Good Lord! They’re asking me to do a ‘Black’ thing.” Upon reflection, however, I concluded that considerations of human resource development, the training of the next generation of chemists, the recruitment and retention of the best and brightest to assist in the discovery and generation of new knowledge are among the most important tasks that we as chemists can perform.

During the past 75 years, our nation has embraced remarkable innovations in technology and information dissemination which have been the result of enormous investments in the basic sciences, engineering, and mathematics. These innovations have led to systemic change in the way we do business, the application of science and technology to our lives, and the way we relate to one another. These fundamental changes have given birth to new industries and seen the demise of others. They have drastically modified cultural mores and improved our standard of living. But just as often, they have also led to more than one ethical paradox or moral crisis. One needs only to think of the medical miracles wrought by gene or by nuclear therapy and the moral dilemmas which have surfaced through cloning or through nuclear technology to begin to comprehend the complex nature of science and its impact on our daily lives. These remarkable discoveries and their impacts on our American way of life have occurred during a time known as the Information Age. They are the result of individual and team effort in the determination of risks and benefits. If the need for significant leadership in science and technology is a matter of national security, then key questions would be what individuals have been encouraged or, better still, allowed to participate in this Information Age, and are they the best possible choices.

Beyond the White Male Stereotype, Cartwright continued from page 1525

support groups that make individuals feel special. This is not a short-term solution to enrollment in chemistry courses, but a long-term commitment to science. There may be many answers such as sponsoring a student group, starting an ACS student affiliate section, or adopting a class in public school. If you consider adopting a school, help the age group you feel most comfortable with. Visit the school. Go with demonstrations and hands-on experiments, or just go read and talk. The teachers welcome the help. When you’re there, make it your goal to have at least one student feel special that day. Act like they are the most exciting thing you’ve seen all day. I know this works. As an example, at the end of this last school year, after visiting one class many times, a small, quiet girl grabbed me, told me how she loved me, and would miss me because she knew I cared about her. I had hardly noticed this shy child; it drove home the point of how powerful we are as teachers and how wide our influence can be. We are a diverse country; we need diversity in our profession. It is sometimes difficult to recruit the underrepresented because they often have problems—the lack of a support group, the need for financial help, and weak backgrounds in science 1526

and math, etc. Nevertheless, each of us can be a part of changing the look of the chemistry community, one student at a time. Literature Cited 1. Rissiter, M. W. Women Scientists in American Struggles and Strategies to 1940; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 1982. Jordon, M. Office of Careers Services, ACS, Washington, DC. Private communication, June 1998. 2. May, W. E. IN Chemistry 1998, 7, 9. 3. Olson, K. NSF, Division of Science Resources Studies, Washington, DC. Private communication, June 1998. 4. Roscher, N. Women Chemists: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going? http://divched.chem.wisc.edu/DivCHED/news/96winter/ award.html; accessed October 1998. 5. Everett, K. G.; DeLoach, W. S.; Bressan, S. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 139–141. 6. Women, Minorities, and the Disabled in Science and Technology; Hearing Before Subcommittee Science, Research and Technology, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1988. 7. Changing America: The New Face of Science and Engineering, Final Report; The Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1989.



The inability or intransigence of the Academy to invest in its human resources, to reward the mentoring of students, and to encourage the mining of underserved pools of talent is baffling…

When I asked my children to describe the ultimate professional American athlete, each picked a different hero. My sons identified with Michael Jordan and Marc McGwire, my daughters with Shannon Miller and Chamiqua Holtsclaw. My personal choice is Muhammed Ali. My parent’s generation, however, would not have such a selection from which to choose. Their generation’s view and image of athletic prowess would be restricted to a rather privileged group of white males, privileged by law and by custom. In that era, there were outstanding athletes who transcended such restrictions including Jim Thorpe, Babe Zaharias, Jesse Owens, and Joe Louis. However, for the most part until the late 1960s, the idea of significant numbers of people of color or women playing professional sports was unthinkable. Indeed in some minor sports, such as golf or tennis, it still is unimaginable. There was a high cost in quality and achievement level for selecting athletes from such a restricted pool. Consider the electric effect that Tiger Woods has had on golf and how much better served that sport is for his participation. Without question, on average, today’s athletes are the most physically fit and intellectually able since records have been kept. Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies in sports, which has become more and more self-evident because of the dynamic play of today’s athletes, is that we will never know how good Babe Ruth really was. He never had to face Satchel Paige or compete with Josh Gibson. Change in the major professional sports was brought about by competition. The change was systemic and irreversible. In the major professional sports, the best and brightest athletes are now courted from every corner of the United States and many parts of the world. This is reflected in the racial and ethnic composition of the teams, although the analogy suffers when it is extended to team ownership. It is useful, however, to show that within a few generations, systemic change in recruitment and retention policies occurred, resulting in a significantly better product. I wonder what our students would say if asked to describe the physical attributes of a chemist. For the most part, I am certain that neither women nor people of color would factor into their descriptions. I wonder if our profession will ever attempt systemic change in its recruitment and retention policies to produce a significantly better product. I wonder how much longer the American chemical profession can pay such a high price to protect an inadequate system of recruitment and retention. At all levels of government, there is clearly concern (indeed alarm) for our national security, based on the need to keep a world leadership position in chemical research. However, there is a critical need to translate this alarm to promoting a human resource development system that will pro-

duce the best and brightest. In chemistry, I see little systemic change occurring in the development of our human resources and little alarm within universities about our eroding position and claim to leadership in producing excellent chemists and training the next generation of research personnel. Federally funded programs and studies have invested significantly into numerous model studies to improve the education of chemists. However, the gender and racial make up of critical positions in recruiting and retention within our profession did not change much in my parent’s lifetime nor have they changed in mine. Thus, it is unlikely that much will change during my children’s lifetime with respect to the pool from which chemists are drawn. This is not to say that there aren’t many islands of excellence, with individuals of differing gender and racial make up, contributing significantly to the profession. However, the number of individuals entering the profession appears to be declining, and the number of blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans entering the profession continues to erode at an even higher rate (1). To a large extent, American chemists are developed and recruited from the higher education system of colleges and universities. This system, often referred to as the Academy, defines its own membership through a process known as tenure and certifies training of those who successfully complete a series of competitive exams and coursework. One can only conclude that if these same types of exams and comparable processes of tenure are effective in producing chemists of color and female chemists in reasonably large numbers in other areas of the world, there must be something inherently flawed in our training methods. The consistent rise in the scientific (and specifically chemical) strength of our international competitors is a reality which we should recognize and from which we should not hide. The Academy has been vested, sometimes by statute but more often by consensus, with addressing our national security need to produce scientific personnel. The inability or intransigence of the Academy to invest in its human resources, to reward the mentoring of students, and to encourage the mining of underserved pools of talent is baffling to me. Signs of hope abound, as there were in my parent’s time, that our profession will enlarge the pool of talent from which it draws its living water. It is my hope that systemic programs, such as those promoted by the National Science Foundation, and more recently by the American Chemical Society, and program-specific operations, such as those promoted by the National Institutes of Health, will work synergistically with the Academy to assure our preeminence in the chemical sciences. It is my hope that our chemical industries will demand from the Academy (and provide appropriate support for) the production of a workforce which can compete in the global marketplace of the future. Literature Cited 1. Malcolm, S. M.; Van Horne, V. V.; Gaddy, C. D.; George, Y. S. Losing Ground: Science and Engineering Graduate Education of Black and Hispanic Americans; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 1998.


1527



New Paradigms, New Technology, New Texts by William R. Robinson

William R. Robinson is in the Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected]. Chemical education is coming out of its equivalent of a paradigm shift, a change described by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1). To paraphrase Kuhn, a paradigm is a collection of beliefs shared by a community of scientists which include an agreement of how problems are to be understood and resolved. According to Kuhn, paradigms are essential because “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.” A paradigm shift occurs when one set of beliefs displaces an older set after a period of persistent failure of the older set to solve an important problem. Kuhn’s ideas serve as a model for relatively recent developments in chemical education. For many years, our ruling paradigm was that the way we were taught chemistry was the way to teach chemistry to everyone else, that students were empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge, and that teaching consisted of telling. Just as a scientific paradigm guides the research efforts and methodology of scientific communities, the chemical education paradigm guided the content, structure, and pedagogy of our courses. In recent years, our beliefs about the nature of teaching chemistry have changed—from faculty-centered to studentcentered. The shift has involved a change in focus from chemistry teaching by faculty to chemistry learning by students. Our new paradigm also includes the recognition that not all students learn in the same ways, that active learning promotes better understanding than does rote learning, that not all students require (or even desire) the same level of chemistry knowledge, and that our students are not like us. As with shifts in traditional science areas, a change in the prevailing chemical education paradigm impacts our practice. This change has effected both the non-majors in our classes and our majors. The single set of criteria for an ACSapproved undergraduate degree in 1988 has expanded to include additional options in biochemistry, chemical physics, chemistry education, environmental chemistry, materials, and polymers. The data in the CPT Special Report Survey of Ph.D. Programs in Chemistry (2) hints at a similar diversity of approaches in graduate programs. Kuhn notes that a field’s texts are rewritten in the aftermath of a scientific revolution. The change in chemical education has also led to new texts, but in this case the change is

1528

In recent years, our beliefs about the nature of teaching chemistry have changed…a field’s texts are rewritten in the aftermath of a scientific revolution.

not in the science itself, but in what science is selected for presentation and the manner of that presentation. Twentyfive years ago, chemistry was taught from texts appropriate for chemistry majors. Today, we have a variety of texts that are directed at different segments of our student body. For example, in addition to traditional introductory texts for majors, we have Chemistry in Context, a text that uses economic, political, and social issues to introduce the underlying chemistry; organic as introductory chemistry; texts with allied health emphasis; texts with traditional coverage designed for non-majors; and, waiting in the wings, a new ACS introductory text that places chemistry within a biological context. Texts are no longer limited to books. Computer-based tutorials replace problem books; CDs and Web sites supplement study guides; and computers deliver homework. ChemQuest is a Web-based high school chemistry course in which the computer has essentially replaced a textbook. It has been said that you can’t beat a book for convenience— however, that does not take into account the Rocket eBook and its inevitable clones. NuvoMedia’s handheld reader for digital books is one-third of the weight of a general chemistry text and can store up to 10 books. Even if a market is too small to support development of a grand multimedia presentation, digital recording will play an important role in future texts. Retrieval systems are becoming more convenient and easier to handle, and digital recordings are compact. For example, the use of CDs replaces 5.5 tons of instruction manuals and saves 10 cubic meters of storage space on the U.S. Navy’s newest nuclear submarines. Finally, we have recognized that we are headed towards a more broadly based student body with disparate interests who will apply chemistry in increasingly different arenas. Like chemistry, their disciplines are becoming more extensive. Like chemists, they will become more focused and need a more selective introduction to chemistry. Literature Cited 1. Kuhn, T. D. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1970. 2. American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. CPT Special Report. http://www.acs.org/cpt/cptsr01.htm (accessed Oct. 1998).



Technology and Teaching by Stanley G. Smith

Stanley G. Smith teaches in the Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801; [email protected]. He is the recipient of the 1998 ACS George C. Pimentel Award in Chemical Education. There is a strong tradition in chemistry to incorporate technology into teaching. Technological advances such as printed books, blackboards, overhead projectors, video projectors, Bunsen burners, hotplates, Erlenmeyer flasks, standard taper glassware, pH meters, spectrometers, videotapes, videodiscs, CD-ROMs, and computers have found their way into classrooms and teaching laboratories. Over the past quarter century, computers have been used to tutor students and help collect and analyze data. Recently, computers have become globally networked, making it possible to use things in the classroom that go far beyond what can be found in the stockroom. Images and text flow rapidly to the classroom from almost anywhere in the world. Online textbooks can be dynamically updated. Powerful 3-D modeling programs supplement the traditional ball-and-stick models in helping students visualize molecules. Animations

Since the availability of these instructional tools is not constrained by time or space, on-line instruction any time and any place will supplement traditional, rigid course structures.

bring understanding to obscure chemical reactions. Thus, instructors are no longer limited by what can be assembled locally to illustrate chemical principles. These advances in information technology change not only how and where material is presented but also increase the importance of teaching students how to find information and analyze data. The nearly instantaneous availability of information and unlimited calculating power are changing the content of courses. The nearly universal availability of programs to solve, for example, stoichiometry and equilibrium problems is allowing greater emphasis on understanding basic scientific principles instead of mathematical details. Since the availability of these instructional tools is not constrained by time or space, on-line instruction any time and any place will supplement traditional, rigid course structures—allowing students to learn at their own rate instead of at the pace dictated by the academic calendar.

ACS Education Division by Sylvia A. Ware

Sylvia A. Ware is the Director of the Division of Education and International Activities, American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Chemical education is clearly in a turbulent state. We are going through a period of reform, which may be more evident at some levels of education than others but will ultimately have an impact on all levels. That being said, I do not believe that this is an unhealthy state. It is true that, for many, involvement in reform is a daunting and unsettling experience. For one thing, it involves recognizing that chemical education needs improvement, and maybe you are part of the reason it needs improving. It involves the dumping of some old preconceived ideas in order to embrace new ideas. It also involves deciding which of the old ways to keep and which of the new ways to avoid. In other words, this isn’t time for business as usual.

The ongoing reform of chemical education is especially challenging because it is multifaceted. We are changing the audience for chemistry knowledge (not just future chemists but all students), the content of many courses (toward greater interdisciplinarity and application), and the ways in which we teach (away from teachers teaching and toward students learning). Introducing reforms to address any one of these facets is work enough; tackling all three at once may seem overly ambitious. After all, we are essentially a fairly conservative community, more comfortable with evolution than revolution. That being said, from where I view the situation, the reform process seems to be gaining momentum, at least at the undergraduate level. The support of the National Science Foundation for the systemic reform of undergraduate chemistry education has had a great deal to do with this acceleration. However, reform at the undergraduate level preceded NSF funding of the five consortia. Individual colleges and universities have developed reform initiatives (e.g., the University of Michigan, among many others) as well as organicontinued on page 1530


1529



We Are All Chemistry Educators1 by Robert L. Lichter

Robert L. Lichter is Executive Director of The Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc. 555 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 100223301; [email protected]. Because chemical education depends vitally on its agents—the learners and the teachers—in the question posed for discussion, I prefer to focus on the “We” rather than on the “Where”. I see many positive developments: Growing numbers of individuals, departments, and institutions have accepted the challenges of education and learning in the chemical sciences and cooperated in ways that might not have been imagined in the not-too-distant past. Exploiting accomplishments in

other disciplines, these collaborations leverage the considerable capabilities of all players, including schools of education, to improve student learning. Research-active chemists and chemical engineers at doctoral institutions are increasingly bringing their substantial intellects to issues of chemical education. In recent years, the Dreyfus Foundation has received more proposals in chemical education from doctoral institutions than from predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUIs); larger proportions from the former than from the latter have received funding. New technologies have generated previously unimagined avenues for strengthening the learning of chemistry. Happily, early indications of the technological tail wagging the educational dog seem to have progressively diminished. More chemists are taking seriously the concepts of and results from research and scholarship in learning and cognition, leading to the recent notion of “chemical education re-

ACS Education Division, Ware continued from page 1529

Chemical education is clearly in a turbulent state…this isn’t time for business as usual.

zations such as Project Kaleidoscope. The ACS has also been involved, producing Chemistry in Context for non-science majors; the new ACS general chemistry course presented from a biological context is still under development. The ACS has also attempted to help disseminate information on the undergraduate reform movement. For example, last year we held a satellite-TV broadcast featuring the five NSF consortia. At the undergraduate level, there are many reform nodes—an extremely healthy sign suggesting consensus that we have a problem that needs to be fixed and general agreement on how to go about that fixing. At the high school level, I do not believe the situation is currently quite as healthy. Yes, there is agreement that we have problems in need of fixing, but I am not convinced that we yet have a consensus on how to improve the learning of high school chemistry. I say this in spite of the congruence between the National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It is all very well to be in favor of science for all, and to espouse inquiry-based instruction and the concept that “less is more”. When it comes to implementation, some students never seem to learn very much; inquiry-based instruction is time-consuming and difficult to do well; and less is clearly less! ChemCom was the first attempt by ACS to reach a broader audience for chemistry instruction. Because ChemCom does espouse the “less is more” philosophy, it has often been treated as a course for low-level students, although it is targeted at the college-bound. 1530

Ironically, the initial success of ChemCom may have served to discourage the development of other reform approaches to high school chemistry instruction. While there are many seeds taking root at the undergraduate level, for whatever reasons, the soil does not seem to have been as fertile at the high school level. This in spite of the fact that the high school reforms began earlier. And what of the state of graduate education? Industrial employers of recent graduates have expressed a great deal of concern about the narrowness of graduate training. Yet, it is not clear that the universities are convinced of the need for major changes in the preparation of doctoral candidates—for either their roles as future faculty or as future industrial chemists. The students themselves are only just beginning to freely express their discontent with the system in which they are apprenticed. Yet, if change is needed, change will eventually occur, although the direction of that change is not well defined at present. The ACS has not played a major role in analyzing this situation, but that too may change. Next February, the ACS Society Committee on Education will hold a special conference to explore the role of ACS in graduate education. So, these are interesting if turbulent times. It is easy to become discouraged with the pace of reform and anticipate a smoother ride ahead. However, as stated before, this is not a revolution but that slow evolution that allows significant reforms to prove their value and trendy reforms to demonstrate their transience. Enjoy the ride—it’s going to last a lot longer!



search”. Indeed, as a subdiscipline in the chemical sciences, chemical education research and scholarship can help frame discussion of important issues that face the challenges of learning chemistry. Common shibboleths are undergoing intellectual scrutiny; others, such as the effectiveness of research as a mode of learning, remain to be explored. At the same time and as in any new area, chemical education has to be seen as part of and not separate from both chemistry and education. Notwithstanding all of these achievements, I discern a number of worrisome trends: First, all chemists are educators, even those in nonacademic settings. All engage aspects of education that they do best, including research as an extraordinarily powerful, if resource-intensive, mode of learning. However, those who assume the mantle of “chemical education” as a nascent scholarly specialty have to overcome an understandable but distracting defensiveness that some emergent scholars display as they strive to legitimize their thrust. They will have to confront the critical challenge, common to all new disciplines, of working doubly hard at the outset to establish both their own and their specialty’s scholarly credibility within the larger chemical sciences framework. Their task includes the evolution of rigorous standards for evaluating the subdiscipline’s scholarship that will be accepted by the larger chemical profession. Simultaneously, the profession itself will gain by creating constructive pathways for validating chemical education researchers and their endeavors, by fostering publication of scholarly results in the leading chemical research journals, and by affording accomplished scholars the same status and respect that are offered to traditional researchers. Indeed, under the rubric of “we are all chemical educators”, as part of traditional research seminars, chemists could spend even ten minutes describing their educational contributions. Second is a tendency among some individuals and organizations to draw invidious contrasts between PUIs and doctoral institutions. The strength of the system of post-secondary learning in the United States is the enormous diversity of settings in which undergraduates can thrive. These settings vary in the selectivity of their admissions and retention criteria; the range of intellectual resources afforded to undergraduates, including research and other independent scholarly opportunities; the variety of mechanisms for advising, encouraging, and indeed teaching students; the expectations by faculty for students; and the expectations by institutions for faculty, who are the glue that binds an academic institution together. PUIs and doctoral institutions serve their particular type of student very well and others not. All institutions have an obligation clearly and honestly to make sure that students know what to expect. But putting judgments of worth on classes of institutions merely provides ammunition for those who continue trying to undermine institutions of higher learning altogether, and it diverts us from the larger and more important task of improving education and learning.

The strength of the system of postsecondary learning in the United States is the enormous diversity of settings in which undergraduates can thrive.

Third, given the putative role of research as education, doctoral faculty, whose institutions indisputably offer the widest range of research opportunities, need to recognize that investing time and resources to embrace undergraduates in research has multiple payoffs. These include the educational outcomes for the students, the new knowledge that is produced, and, coupled with appropriate guidance, the training that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows can receive as immediate supervisors of undergraduates. This is especially true because, despite the well-deserved accolades that a number of PUIs receive for their strengths in research with undergraduates, most PUIs do not have active research programs, and an increasing proportion of those that do fail to exploit available federal and private sources of support, many of which are undersubscribed. Indeed, the notion has been expressed in a discouraging number of occasions that “research is important, but we’re a teaching institution”. Such an outlook continues to perpetuate the false dichotomy between teaching and research. A more constructive theme would be “research is important because we’re a teaching institution”. Fourth, discussion of chemical education tends to be directed primarily to the K–16 levels, when in fact the concept is a boundless, seamless process. In particular, many issues of graduate and postdoctoral education need attention. While research correctly underpins graduate education, graduate education is more than research. Graduate students need to become more than just experts in a narrow research area as employment possibilities become more diverse and uncertain. Adaptability to changing circumstances through externships in other settings and development of skills in communicating chemistry to nonspecialists (even to other chemists) are among the most compelling changes that need to be embedded in graduate education. Finally, there remains the broad issue of human capital development—the next generation of chemical scientists— while political and economic barriers continue to be erected that prevent the best minds from blossoming into intellectual leadership. The disturbing conflation of issues of diversity with those of foreign immigration threatens to distract us from identifying and nurturing those intellectual leaders, the single most important task facing the chemical enterprise. Note 1. The views expressed are solely those of the author.


1531



Perspectives of the ACS President by Paul H. L. Walter

Paul H. L. Walter is Professor Emeritus at Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866; [email protected]. He is serving as president of the American Chemical Society during 1998. I am pleased to be writing this essay today and not fifty years ago. For while we have far to go, we have come a long way from what passed for secondary school chemical education in the early 1950s. Then the lecture, and that is what it always was, encouraged, nay required, rote memorization. If one knew that aluminum had a “valence” of three, that chloride ion was precipitated by silver ion, and how a blast furnace worked, one could do well in what passed for chemistry. Lab, where it existed at all, was a sometime thing, open only if we had been “good”. What passed for “experiments” were less instructive and much less interesting that those in my Chem Craft Chemistry Set. The “what” question dominated; the “why” question was absent. Yet, as scientists, we all know that the “why” is what mature science is about. Amassing data is only the prelude to explaining nature. When the Soviet satellite Sputnik orbited the earth on October 4, 1957, passing over the United States, it got our attention. The development of new secondary school curricula—ChemStudy, the Chemical Bond Approach, BSCS, and its various colors—were part of the response. At the same time, education was looking more closely at the genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget which led to “child-centered education”. Provided that the child was at the appropriate level to deal with abstraction, teachers could step down from their role as omniscient dispensers of truth to be memorized and serve instead as facilitators of discovery on the part of the students. Although the curricula developed at this time have all passed away, their influence has changed textbooks and teaching to this day. In fact, the “inquiry-based” approach to learning chemistry has become the norm at our best schools and is built into the National Science Education Standards. As President of the ACS, I have had the honor to meet and often present awards to some of the best chemistry teachers in this country. From Honolulu to Cleveland and from Boston to Baton Rouge, men and women are instilling into our children and grandchildren the excitement of science. At the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, held re-

1532

We have come a long way, but the world has changed in the meantime, and educational standards that would have been outstanding in the fifties and would suffice in the nineties will not do for the next century.

cently in Waterloo, Ontario, I heard papers from high school and college teachers where they shared experiences and ideas on how to implement “inquiry-based” education at their level. If you have never attended one of these events, I urge you to do so. You will leave there a changed person. We have come a long way, but the world has changed in the meantime, and educational standards that would have been outstanding in the fifties and would suffice in the nineties will not do for the next century. The globalization of science, the economy, and employment means that the student who grows up in Stamford, Connecticut must be competitive not just with students from Greenwich or Darien, but with those from Sydney and Singapore. My father has a favorite phrase, “The best is just good enough for his father’s son.” Well, the same holds true for our children and their chemical education. Anything less than the best, and they lose. At the secondary level, I see us further extending inquirybased education, so that not only the best of our teachers, but all of our teachers will use it. The Internet with its chat rooms, e-mail, and the Web will facilitate this by allowing high school (and even middle school) students to collaborate on projects with their peers around the world. Meaningful research can be carried out and publicized via the Web. An outstanding example of this today is the work of Fen YuLewis and her students at Ohio High School in Strongsville. Through their research on the Cuyahoga River, she introduced her students to real research. And yet more, she introduced them to research with profound social significance for the community, providing them with a clear example of the importance of chemistry to all humankind. A bright future awaits us all as the next generation learns that science is not a bunch of facts to be memorized or equilibrium constant problems to be solved, but is rather discovery. When they learn that research is not the exclusive province of Ph.D.’s but that they too can make discoveries and learn that these discoveries can have a significant, positive effect on society, then they will understand why they and we can be proud to be chemists.



Public Outreach by Helen M. Free

Helen M. Free works in the Diagnostics Division of the Bayer Corporation. She is a member and past president of the ACS Board of Directors.

…the future must still rely on those in the science community willing to take the responsibility for reaching out to help others understand the excitement, the fun, and the sheer joy of

Public outreach is a way of getting the general public to hear about, to understand, and, most of all, to appreciate the contributions of chemistry to the quality of their lives. There are different audiences that form public outreach programs. These different “publics” include:

• • •

•

children who have a natural curiosity about the world around them, but often lose this attribute when they reach middle school age; most members in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments, who must rely on others with technical expertise in scientific matters; news media, where the occasional chemical disaster is given headline coverage for long periods in contrast to new chemical advances which may merit only brief mention on the back pages or as filler at the end of the TV news; the general adult population who need unbiased information in order to vote intelligently and to promote the benefits of chemistry and other basic sciences, but who are often misled into chemophobia by the vociferous few.

The American Chemical Society has become a leader in the public outreach arena. Most widespread and likely most effective are the annual National Chemistry Week and the 1999 International Chemistry Celebration. Activities vary across the nation but include demonstrations of chemical reactions, indicating how chemistry is involved in our daily lives; hands-on experiments; activities in malls, libraries, and other public places; exhibits showing the importance of the chemical industry; and the ubiquitous presence of chemicals in all consumer goods. For children, there are many types of programs held all over the country and indeed all over the world. Among them are industry-sponsored competitions, school visits by scientists, and industry visits by students. Colleges and universities hold science programs specifically aimed at enhancing the interest of young girls in science, such as the week-long B-WISER camp for 7th grade girls at the College of Wooster (managed by volunteers in the Buckeye Women in Chemistry and Engineering Research); Hypatia Day held at St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana; or Expanding Your Horizons which started in California.

chemistry.

Large and medium-sized cities now have science museums, and these provide education and fun for all age groups. Community programs are often geared toward disadvantaged students, since underrepresented minority groups are the pool from which scientists of the future must come. Many scientific associations hold public forum sessions where scientists speak to the general public about the importance of science in their daily lives and how they can avail themselves of helpful materials. Web sites are available for kids and adults to find out more about science. The problem is to get people to take advantage of them. The National Chemical Historic Landmarks project recognizes the huge impact of chemistry on the economy, the progress, and the very life of our nation. It is difficult to measure the true success of public outreach programs since the changes they produce are often subtle and isolated. We know that they can be effective when children are asked to draw a picture of a scientist, and the response is “Do you want a stereotype scientist with wild hair and pocket protectors or do you want a real scientist?” Participation in public outreach is the means by which individuals become scientifically literate—not to be scientists but to learn to apply critical, creative thinking to the social problems of the day. Computers provide a wealth of information and knowledge in addition to lectures, reading, and laboratory experiments available to us. Perhaps we can harness technology in the future to assess the impact of public outreach programs or to coordinate the different areas of public outreach to be more effective. But the future must still rely on those in the science community willing to take the responsibility for reaching out to help others understand the excitement, the fun, and the sheer joy of chemistry. With all the technology available to us, public outreach still starts with each of us planting the seed of curiosity in our neighbors and friends at the backyard barbecue or at the local service club meeting, talking to seatmates on the airplane, or communicating with editors and reporters on the local paper or TV or radio station (and writing a thank you letter to the editor when an article appears in the paper emphasizing the good contributions of science). Set a goal of discussing chemistry with one person each day for the next year; if all chemists do this, we’ll secure scientific literacy for the future!


1533



Federal Funding of Science Education1 by Robert F. Watson

Robert F. Watson is the Director of the Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation; this year, he has been on special assignment as a Scientist-inResidence at the Department of Chemistry, The American University, Washington, DC; [email protected]. Thirty years on the staff of the National Science Foundation (NSF), including a tour devoted to policy work in the Executive Office of the President during the Reagan administration, have provided a marvelous vantage point from which to observe the events and processes of change in U.S. science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education (SMETE). In their accompanying article, Dick Zare and John Hunt highlight NSF support of graduate chemical education and student research. I will look at education across the disciplines of science and mathematics but focus on the pre-graduate levels. Two quick observations up front: Federal funding for science and mathematics education is not broken significantly into specific discipline-labeled pieces (excepting pre-college mathematics). The chemistry community must work within that broad framework to secure and utilize resources for chemistry education. Secondly, I have come to understand that most of the time most elected officials provide what they believe is wanted by most of the engaged U.S. public. During the 1960s, public concern about Sputnik produced major federal funding for SMETE, most of it for aid to individuals through what is now the Department of Education. But there were significant appropriations for educational programs in the Department of Energy, NSF, and NASA, etc. as well. In those days, as now, the leading effort was to improve elementary and secondary education, mostly via in-service teacher institutes but also through the wellknown curriculum projects supported by NSF. I will not use precious space here to do budget analyses, but suffice it to say that in real dollars, we have yet to see those days come again. During the 1970s, NSF support for SMETE declined sharply; the low point at NSF came in 1981 with the “great shutdown” of the education directorate because of the Reagan administration’s belief that education is essentially a local responsibility in this country. It took Congress a couple of years to restart what is now the Education and Human Resources Directorate’s (EHR’s) pre-college programs—and that was due mostly to the outcry from thousands of science and math school teachers led by Bill Aldridge (then head of NSTA) and Izaak Wirszup (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Chicago). It was not until 1985 that NSF’s programs for Under1534

graduate SMETE were reborn due to pressure on the Congress for an instrumentation program—an effort by a group of Midwestern liberal arts colleges. Critical momentum then came from a major study by the National Science Board (the Homer Neal report) which led to reestablishment of an undergraduate division (now the Division of Undergraduate Education, DUE) and a broadened program that included curriculum development (limited at first to mathematics and engineering), faculty enhancement, programming for underrepresented groups, and support for undergraduate research. During the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s, most SMETE course and curriculum content was focused on preparing students to become practicing scientists and engineers. Scant attention was paid either to educating the public or to preparing teachers and technician-level workers. Although many regarded it as at least as important as work on content, very little funding was available for research on teaching and learning—and the findings of what research there was did not reach many school classrooms, let alone colleges and universities. Most instruction was delivered in fixed 50-minute lectures, augmented in the sciences by canned labs, and for some students, research. In those years, NSF support of SMETE mostly reflected this interest in the “pipeline”—emphasizing undergraduate research and course and curriculum design for majors. Most observers agree that the U.S. has led the world in the quality of its preparation of scientists and professional engineers; and there were (and always have been) visionaries in SMETE and hot spots of innovation—for example, the creation of BASIC as an easyto-use computer language designed originally for undergraduate social science students in the 60s; biologist Sam Postlewaite and his individualized instruction programs in the 70s; and Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom) in the late 80s, which made chemistry more meaningful, first for high school students, later for college students. Where Are We Headed? An early portent of major change in undergraduate SMETE came in the 1980s when the mathematics and engineering communities recognized the need for reforms in their respective curricula and began effectively to call for NSF support of such activities. The momentum arising in their efforts later enabled NSF/DUE to broaden its curriculum and instrumentation programs to include the other disciplines— and, for example, to initiate the “Chemistry Reform” effort. Five years ago, NSF initiated a major new DUE program, Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP). It responds to expressions of concern by the Congress and by many state legislatures about the need for K–12 teachers welltrained in SMETE, and I hope it will continue to grow. CETP calls for several kinds of collaboration: between faculties and administrations; among the sciences, especially to develop in-



ter- and multidisciplinary curricula; and between science faculty and their colleagues in the schools and colleges of education. I believe that this fundamental emphasis on collaboration will serve all students well in the future. Over these same five years, NSF’s Advanced Technological Education Program (ATE) has grown very significantly. This effort to strengthen technician education was instigated by the U.S. community colleges and later mandated by the Congress. Appropriations to NSF in support of ATE have grown from a few hundred thousand dollars at the start to more than $30 million this year, and I expect it will foster many improvements. NSF has sponsored recently two major studies whose findings are influencing SMETE nationally and also guiding the patterns of current NSF support for SMETE. I believe that the National Science Education Standards (pre-college) and Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate SMETE will have increasing impact for years to come. I hope that these changes now underway toward a more inclusive, integrated curriculum and student-centered learning will continue to grow. Already many, but probably not most, faculty and administrators are committed to reforms in both content and pedagogy, based on solid research in teaching and learning that will best serve all of today’s students and

I hope that these changes now underway toward a more inclusive, integrated curriculum and student-centered learning will continue to grow.

tomorrow’s society. There is increasingly widespread recognition of the particular national need at this time for higher education to focus on the preparation of the next generation of elementary and secondary science and math teachers; students ready to enter the nation’s high-tech work force, principally as technicians graduating from community colleges; and scientifically and technologically competent citizenry. I hope that the U.S. SMETE communities will pervasively embrace the recommendations of the Standards and Shaping the Future and succeed in implementing them. I hope that the promise for all students of the NSF-supported and other reform efforts will be realized and that the momentum toward reform achieved in the 90s will become the reality of reform throughout U.S. SMETE for the 21st century. Note 1. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations with which he is affiliated.

Federal Support for Chemical Education1 by John B. Hunt and Richard N. Zare

John B. Hunt is the Deputy Assistant Director for Integrative Activities, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; [email protected]. Richard N. Zare is in the Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5080; he is the immediate past chair of the National Science Board; [email protected]. We focus on the National Science Foundation because among federal agencies, such as the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, or the National Institutes of Health, NSF is the only one that fosters chemical education at all levels. NSF’s support extends from the first mention of molecules in the primary school, through postdoctoral education, to lifelong learning as enabled by informal science education. The hallmark of NSF’s educational efforts at all levels and in all areas

of science, mathematics, and engineering is discovery-based learning. The discovery-based approach reaches its apex in graduate education, where original discoveries are probably the most essential component of the doctoral dissertation. NSF’s largest investment in chemical education is at the doctoral level where, by far, the largest component is grants to individual investigators which both support research assistants and provide the supplies and instrumentation needed to make discoveries. It is difficult to quantify the NSF investment in graduate chemical education because the number depends on how broadly chemistry is defined. The NSF Division of Chemistry (CHE) supports about 1500 graduate students, which it estimates to be about 10% of the total U.S. graduate enrollment in chemistry. Other NSF divisions support graduate students in biochemistry, chemical engineering, chemical physics, materials chemistry, marine chemistry, geochemistry, and atmospheric chemistry. The authors prefer the broader definition of chemistry suggested by our late good friend Ed Hayes who asserted, “Chemistry is what good chemists do.” NSF Graduate Research Fellows active during fiscal year 1998 included 310 individuals who idencontinued on page 1536


1535


The State of Chemical Education Federal Support for Chemical Education, Hunt and Zare continued from page 1535

tified their fields of study as chemistry, biochemistry, or chemical engineering. NSF is also a large player in providing the core instrumentation that a department must have to offer a first-rate graduate education in chemistry—the NMRs, mass specs, advanced computers, etc. A number of recent studies have questioned whether the majority of science and engineering graduates are being trained appropriately for the jobs that they will seek. See, for example, the National Science Board document entitled “The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education”, which can be found at http:// www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsb97235.2 These studies generally recommend that greater breadth, improved communication skills, and more experience in teamwork are needed. Connections to industry are also considered important in the graduate education of chemists and chemical engineers because most graduate students in these fields ultimately find employment in industry. A variety of NSF programs provide the means for addressing these perceived needs. The Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) program enables interactions with industry. Graduate students associated with science and technology centers, engineering research centers, and materials research science and engineering centers are provided with broad and often multidisciplinary training as well as opportunities for interactions with industrial researchers. The new Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT program) was designed specifically to provide broadly based graduate education and supports only multidisciplinary projects. The tricky part is of course to figure out how to do all these things and still give appropriate attention to depth, while holding down the time to degree. We suggest that a careful study of the efficiency of the Ph.D. degree granting process might be in order. Possibly it would be useful to define the end point of graduate education as that time when a certain body of skills and the ability to make original contributions have been attained, rather than when the pile of data has reached certain proportions. Since NSF contributes less than half of the total federal support for academic chemical research, other federal agencies contribute enormously to graduate and postdoctoral chemical education. This is especially true for NIH, not only through its research grants to biochemists, chemists, and chemical engineers, but also through its multidisciplinary training grants, many features of which are common to NSF’s traineeship efforts. In his accompanying article in this issue on the history of NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), Bob Watson touches on many of the activities of that division. Consequently, we dwell here more on broader themes regarding undergraduate chemical education. For nearly a decade, the integration of research and education has been a battle cry at NSF, inspired in part by the perceived neglect of undergraduate education by university researchers. An extremely important way in which research is integrated into education is 1536

The hallmark of NSF’s educational efforts at all levels and in all areas of science, mathematics, and engineering is discovery-based learning.

through research participation by undergraduates. From the inception of the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program, the chemistry division has been its most enthusiastic supporter, investing at present in 56 REU sites involving more than 500 undergraduates with about 300 additional undergraduates supported on research projects. A main objective of NSF’s Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program is to encourage the holistic development of professorial careers by funding young faculty members for both research and education. The Division of Chemistry has provided leadership both in the development of CAREER and in encouraging participation by young faculty members. Presently, more than 100 CAREER awards are in effect in CHE. Another important NSF program that enables research in the undergraduate arena is the Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program. In recent years, NSF has experienced a significant decline in the number of RUI proposals from chemists, but the reasons for this falloff are not clear. In our opinion, the four most critical educational issues for the future of chemistry are: • • • •

improved diversity of the profession better-trained chemistry teachers development of better integration of education and research in the chemistry community a more chemically literate citizenry

DUE’s systemic changes in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum effort addresses all four issues by providing models for more relevant and exciting introductory college courses and by encouraging appropriate partnerships. Advanced Technology Education (ATE) grants in the area of chemical technology provide for the education of chemical technicians and may help improve chemistry courses for the large fraction of minority students who matriculate first at community colleges. The NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) promote the interactions needed to produce teachers appropriately grounded in pedagogy, content, and reality. These interactions occur among universities, two- and four-year colleges and K–12 school systems as well as among the disciplinary departments and schools or departments of education. While most of its curriculum efforts are focused on beginning college courses, NSF also provides help in the periodic reexamination of upper-level chemistry courses. The recent workshops on the analytical chemistry curriculum, supported by DUE and CHE, produced an absolutely first-rate report (1) worthy of emulation in other areas. The NSF Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Science Education (ESIE) is the major federal provider of focused support for high school chemistry. It has collaborated closely with the ACS in a variety of efforts at this



level, such as the original production of the textbook Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom), which is now self-sustaining. The Department of Education provides a large fraction of the resource base which is utilized in K–12 chemical education, and important partnerships between NSF and the Department exist, with new ones under development, in the areas of teacher education and enhancement and educational technologies. The NSF Informal Science Education Program contributes immensely to spreading chemical literacy to the public in general. We believe that the two overarching issues for chemical education at present are (1) the need for better connections among the various pieces of the enterprise to create a synergistic ecosystem and (2) the need to utilize the full power of information technologies at all levels. Stronger connections among chemistry departments, and university schools and departments of education could provide both content to teacher education and improved pedagogy to college chemistry courses. With respect to making connections, a very interesting new CHE venture is Research Sites for Educators in Chemistry (RSEC). It is intended to bring about the multivariate interactions of faculty from high schools, two- and four-year colleges, master’s universities, and research universities in a region, thereby providing research opportunities for faculty members at undergraduate institutions and promoting the integration of research and education at all involved institutions.

Chemists have not been nearly so effective as some other scientists (e.g., astronomers) in bringing the excitement of their profession to the K–12 classroom. NSF has showed its willingness on an ad hoc basis to support efforts to reach across these boundaries (e.g., through supplementary funds to bring teachers to research laboratories). More needs to be done to promote the public’s awareness and appreciation of the chemical sciences. For example, the creation of inviting Web pages that are written for the non-expert would be a modest but most welcome step on the part of the community as we seek to explain not only what chemists do but also why it matters and why it deserves continuing federal support. A bolder step would be for the university chemistry community to commit itself more seriously to the chemical education of undergraduates who are not majoring in the sciences. Note 1. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not express those of the National Science Foundation or Stanford University. 2. Accessed October 2, 1998.

Literature Cited 1. Kuwana, T. Curricular Developments in the Analytical Sciences; 1997. Based on two workshops in Leesburg, VA (October 1998) and Atlanta, GA (March 1997); University of Kansas, Department of Chemistry; Funded by the National Science Foundation.

Chemical Education Research by J. Dudley Herron

Before his recent retirement, Dudley Herron taught at Morehead State University and Purdue University. He lives in Morehead, Kentucky; [email protected]. The inclusion of this article in a series on the state of chemical education is an indication of where we are in chemical education research. This viewpoint would not have been included 25 years ago, and such an article will not make it 25 years hence if chemists do not continue the communication with educators and cognitive psychologists that make useful chemical education research possible. In the Beginning: Mutual Distrust After completing my bachelor’s degree in 1958, I sought help from my alma mater in upgrading science education in the elementary and secondary schools, where I supervised and taught.1 I told the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences that scientists as well as faculty in education were required.

He agreed, but explained that faculty in education had little understanding of scholarship, making collaboration between his faculty and those in education impossible. The dean of the College of Education gave a similar response: After conceding that collaboration was needed, he allowed that it was unfortunately true that science faculty are pompous, arrogant, and impossible to work with. There was enough truth in these views to discourage me from efforts at cross-cultural understanding, but after completing my Ph.D., I had another go. I accepted a position at Purdue University because I thought that the joint appointment in chemistry and education might provide opportunities to build bridges between the two disciplines. Welcome to Purdue: Tentative Interaction The interview trip to Purdue was strictly for experience, assuming no offer would ensue because all of my degrees were in education, and the department of chemistry was in charge of the trip. During the obligatory seminar on my thesis research (1), chemistry faculty listened courteously, but the first question got straight to the point: “Do you call that research?” continued on page 1538


1537


The State of Chemical Education Chemical Education Research, Herron continued from page 1537

I did. I hid my thesis from graduate students in later years, but it was representative of science education research in 1965. My response to the question went something like this: “I know that it isn’t anything like what you call research. Call it a study, investigation, or whatever you like. It’s scholarship that interests me and the kind of thing I plan to do. If you are uncomfortable having someone in this department doing such things, don’t hire me.” That response and Michael Kasha’s assurance—that even though I wasn’t a chemist, I could be—got me the job. Had research competence been important in my case, as it was in other chemistry hires, my audacity and Kasha’s assurances would have fallen short. Few, if any, chemists who listened to my presentation saw value in the work, but it didn’t matter. I was being hired to prepare high school chemistry teachers, an important job that would be done better in their department than in another. Learning the Trade I might not have done research at Purdue had the department not included my name on the list of faculty that incoming graduate students could interview in order to select a major professor. In 1965 new faculty in education were not granted doctoral directive status. So when a graduate student interviewed me, I suggested that Joe Novak, the only science educator at Purdue with doctoral directive status, might serve as his major professor. Within the hour, I was called to the chemistry department office where the chair assured me that doctoral directive status would be forthcoming immediately (it was) and clearly instructed me never to send our graduate students to another department! Apparently, I knew how to direct doctoral research after all! Having never been a member of a research group,2 I had no idea how to run one, but I accepted graduate students and, together, we addressed questions of common interest. Occasionally we tried to answer questions raised in our research seminar by collectively planning and carrying out a study. These studies sometimes led to publications (2) but not to student theses. I was learning, and others in science education were learning, how to shape a research program so that, over time, information accumulates to the point that one has confidence about what is going on in teaching and learning chemistry. Finding Useful Theory The 1960s produced significant changes in cognitive science. Information processing theories replaced those of behaviorists, and Jean Piaget emerged as the most influential psychologist in education since Thorndike. In 1975 Tom Lippincott published in this Journal an article that introduced Piaget’s work to chemists (3), though not, as I recall, without revisions. After describing what Piaget 1538

... it no longer seems out of the question for chemical educators to look at physiological changes during problem solving or to map brain activity as students explain their understanding of chemistry concepts.

called formal operations, the article cited studies indicating that many college freshmen do not use formal operations, but much chemistry content requires formal reasoning to be understood. Piaget’s ideas and his technique of clinical interviews stimulated a great deal of interest among chemists. Chemists interviewed students to clarify their (mis)conceptions of important concepts and examined the reasoning used to solve problems (4). How Far Have We Come? I have used personal anecdotes to illustrate changes in attitude that led chemical education research to its current, tentative acceptance by chemists. We have come a long way. Although Neil Gordon suggested in September 1924 (5) “that there be a series of articles on application of educational psychology to the teaching of chemistry”, research articles in the Journal were limited to surveys of teaching practice in colleges and secondary schools (6). In 1996 the Journal’s annual subject index began including chemical education research as a category, and 24 entries appeared under that heading; the 1997 index contains 36 entries. But is there substance to these articles? Is there evidence that chemical education research is producing valued information? I believe that there is. Throughout the lifetime of the Journal, chemists have lamented the poor preparation of entering students, whether they be entering undergraduate or graduate programs, and there have been numerous studies related to that preparation. But earlier studies painted the picture in broad strokes—listing topics in which weaknesses appeared or reporting correlations with exam scores (7 ). Recent studies focus on specific misconceptions and go beyond listing deficiencies to describe sources of confusion and suggest measures that can be taken to overcome the confusion (8). Theory plays a more important role in research, and research results are more frequently rationalized in terms of psychological theory (9). There are more frequent references to research and theory derived from research in articles that describe teaching practice (10). All of this suggests that chemical education research is playing an increasingly important role in chemical education. continued on page 1540



Assessment in Chemistry—Again a Hot Topic by I. Dwaine Eubanks and Lucy Pryde Eubanks

Dwaine Eubanks is Director and Lucy Pryde Eubanks is Associate Director of the ACS Division of Chemical Education Examinations Institute, located at Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634; [email protected], [email protected]. The Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED) established its Committee on Examinations and Tests in September 1930, with Otto M. Smith of Oklahoma A&M College serving as its first chair (1). That was a time when assessment practices in high schools and colleges were coming under increasing scrutiny—and increasing pressures for change. In July 1930, Rockefeller funds had been granted to the American Council on Education to create a Cooperative Test Service. The charge to that group was to improve high school and college tests. R. W. Tyler of Ohio State University was given responsibility for chemistry tests. DivCHED’s test committee produced the early chemistry tests, and the Cooperative Test Service distributed them (2). The idea of standardizing testing for chemistry students from a variety of institutions was new, and the consequences proved to be far-reaching. In the ensuing years, the content and standards for student achievement in various chemistry courses converged. Prospective employers and graduate school admissions committees were able to better judge a student’s academic transcript than had been possible before. The acceptance of ACS tests became widespread; by the mid-1960s, tests were offered for all standard undergraduate courses, graduate placement, and high school chemistry (1). The ACS DivCHED examinations program had matured into a stable, ongoing provider of good tests for high schools and colleges. That situation remained much the same until the mid-1980s, when the Division of Chemical Education dissolved the Examinations Committee and replaced it with an Examinations Institute. The Institute was given a much broader charge than the committee had been. While standardized chemistry examinations were to remain as an important contribution to the chemistry teaching community, the Examinations Institute was expected to do much more than just produce exams. New assessment instruments and services, based on sound research, were to be developed. Testitem banks, laboratory assessment activities, conceptual exams, and computer-based testing initiatives have all resulted from the broadened mandate. Today, the issue of student achievement is again in the forefront—but with a new twist. Legislators, Congressmen, and bureaucrats, using the rhetoric of accountability, are now demanding “better” assessment throughout the American educational system. Those pressures are coming at a time

For chemistry assessment, the road ahead clearly will have more unpredictable twists and turns than has been the case heretofore...

when technical challenges to assessment professionals are greater than they have ever been. Much is now known about the diversity in how students acquire and process information. That diversity demands sophisticated assessment techniques—techniques that are not easily adapted to mass administration. At the same time, political pressures to provide teacher-competency exams, baccalaureate examinations, and program assessment protocols are increasing dramatically. Many educators believe that valid assessment instruments and protocols are of less concern than having some measurement that can be associated with quality. Whether or not a measurement is valid may sometimes be superseded by other considerations. For chemistry assessment, the road ahead clearly will have more unpredictable twists and turns than has been the case heretofore in the sixty-eight year history of the Division’s examinations program. We now know how to better assess factual and conceptual knowledge in chemistry. We now know how to better avoid racial, ethnic, and gender bias in assessment materials. We now know how to better accommodate different student learning styles. As chemistry educators become more generally aware of techniques to assure quality assessment in their classrooms, the future for quality classroom assessment in chemistry is bright. The emergence of national curriculum standards for precollege science and mathematics provides new challenges and new opportunities (3). The Standards discuss the process of learning and the structure of knowledge on a par with the mastery of traditional content. The realignment of curricula to address the learning goals expressed in the science education standards is already producing significant changes in what is taught and how teaching is done. The effectiveness of the new paradigms can only be demonstrated if valid assessment techniques are developed concomitantly. An initial set of suggestions for the classroom teacher has been released, but this is only the beginning (4). Judgments concerning the success or failure of the Standards will inevitably be based on the outcomes of some sort of national assessment. Assurance that assessment is valid is a major responsibility of the entire community of chemistry educators. Using assessment knowledge in support of responsible public policy is problematic, even when chemistry educators speak with a single voice. Results from seriously flawed assessment instruments are often taken seriously in the public sector. Even the results of sound studies can be misundercontinued on page 1540


1539


The State of Chemical Education Assessment in Chemistry, Eubanks and Eubanks continued from page 1539

stood or misinterpreted. The shift of the assessment focus from classrooms to public forums will require us to broaden our educational focus. Not only must we measure what students know (or do not know) about chemistry—we must be able to help the public understand what science literacy and science competence really mean. The task ahead is daunting, but possible.

Literature Cited 1. Ashford, T. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1965, 42, 496–501. 2. Smith, O. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1937, 14, 229–231. 3. National Science Education Standards; National Research Council, National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 4. Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards; American Chemical Society Education Division: Washington, DC, 1997.

Chemical Education Research, Herron continued from page 1538

What the Future Holds During my Ph.D. final exam, Michael Kasha needled me by asking the difference in what he (and other academic chemists) did as science educators and what I planned to do. He went on to inquire, “Why worry about learning psychology and its implications for teaching science? Why not just wait until we understand brain chemistry well enough to study what really happens during learning?” In 1965 I easily dismissed his suggestion and declared that I was willing to plug away on the basis of crude psychological theories for a few more years. Recent studies utilizing MRI to identify brain activity during various kinds of neural processing suggest that we are coming closer to the physiological explanation of learning that Kasha asked about in 1965 (11). My crystal ball is no clearer than the readers’, but it no longer seems out of the question for chemical educators to look at physiological changes during problem-solving or to map brain activity as students explain their understanding of chemistry concepts. Perhaps by the time the Journal celebrates its one-hundredth anniversary, chemistry educators will use more chemistry than psychology in their research, and our instruments of change will be in the pharmacy rather than in the classroom. Notes 1. The launch of Sputnik made science education a “hot” field, and there were few graduates certified in the field. Consequently, my first job included supervision of science instruction in all grades as well as teaching chemistry, physics, and 8th grade science. 2. My thesis research, like most educational research at the time, was done independently. Although I sat with other graduate students in seminars devoted to discussion of research in science education and we had informal conversations about the work each was doing, there was no common thrust to our efforts and little collaboration.

Literature Cited 1. Herron, J. D. A Factor Analytic and Statistical Comparison of CHEM Study and Conventional Chemistry in Terms of Their Development of Cognitive Abilities. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 1965; Dissertation Abstracts International Order No. 65_15,466.

1540

2. Greenbowe, T.; Herron, J. D.; Lucas, C.; Nurrenbern, S.; Staver, J.; Ward, C. J. Educ. Psychol. 1981, 73, 705–711. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 146. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 758. Herron, J. D.; Agbebi, E.; Cottrell, L.; Sills, T. Sci. Educ. 1976, 60, 375. Herron, J. D.; Cantu, L.; Ward, R.; Srinivasan, V. Sci. Educ. 1977, 61, 185. Ward, C.; Nurrenbern, S.; Lucas, C.; Herron, J. D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1981, 18, 123. 3. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 146. 4. Ben-Zvi, R.; Eylon, B. S.; Silberstein, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 64. Herron, J. D.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 528. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873. Niaz, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 502. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 508. Mas, C. J. F.; Perez, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 616. Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, K. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 695. 5. Cited in John Moore’s September editorial ( J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1063). 6. Pritham’s survey to determine the need for a cooperative test in biological chemistry (Pritham, G. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1945, 22, 84) and Tenbush & Brewer’s survey of qualitative analysis schemes used in popular textbooks (Tenbush, M. M.; Brewer, G. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1946, 23, 66) are representative. Similar surveys appearing in the 1950s: Nelson, B. J. Chem. Educ. 1955, 32, 195; Bliss, H. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1955, 32, 428. Carlin, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1957, 34, 25. 7. Lawrence, A. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1955, 32, 25. Burkhalter, T. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1956, 33, 406. Lander, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1965, 42, 231. Stoppel, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1966, 43, 556. 8. Huddle, P. A.; Pillay, A. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33, 65– 77. Noh, T.; Scharmann, L. C. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 199–217. Ogude, N. A.; Bradley, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1145–1149. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 819. Smith, K. J.; Metz, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 233. 9. See, for example, Robinson’s discussion of Dechsri, P.; Jones, L.; Heikkinen, H. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 891 in terms of the psychological construct of “working memory” (J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 282). 10. Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322. Bowen, C. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1172. Fountain, K. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 354. Long, P. L; Towns, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 506. Towns, M. H.; Grant, E. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 819. 11. McKinstry, R. C.; Feinberg, D. A. Science 1998, 279, 1965. Reber, P. J.; Stark, C. E. L; Squire, L. R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1998, 95, 747–750.



Challenges in Science and Technology Communication by Madeleine Jacobs

Madeleine Jacobs is the editor-inchief of Chemical & Engineering News, published by the American Chemical Society. In a year filled with all kinds of birthday celebrations marking chemistry milestones, congratulations are especially in order to the Journal of Chemical Education on its 75th anniversary. During this year, JCE has continued and enhanced its outstanding tradition of excellence in education. Especially noteworthy was the series “Viewpoints: Chemists on Chemistry”, articles on different topics in chemistry by outstanding chemical researchers who summarized the past 50 years and looked ahead 25 years. These features will have a lasting influence far beyond this anniversary. In a somewhat different way, Chemical and Engineering News, which itself celebrated its 75th anniversary in 1998, has been a vehicle for chemical education. C&EN has been called the “glue” that holds the heterogeneous group of 156,000 ACS members together. The magazine serves two important educational functions. The first, and the most obvious, is that it communicates the latest path-breaking advances in the chemical enterprise—in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, the university research establishment, government laboratories, and the nonprofit world—to its audiences, including educators. But a more subtle educational role is found in its mission to educate chemists outside of their narrow area of specialization. The major challenge for C&EN—and perhaps for chemical educators in general—in the new millennium is to improve the communication among these groups. Let me give an example of how C&EN plays a part in communicating with chemists outside their narrow area of specialization. Sixty percent of ACS members—which is a fairly accurate reflection of the employment patterns for all chemists—are employed in industry. The business department of C&EN reports on issues of concern to the chemical industry. C&EN reporters write company profiles; track trends among the major industry sectors such as pharmaceuticals, fine and intermediate chemicals, instrumentation, and commodities; report on basic and applied research; develop in-depth stories about management challenges and initiatives; and compile statistical information that help us track the health of the chemical industry. A regular reader of this section will know which companies are the leaders in their field and where the best employment opportunities lie, and they will have a clear understanding of the challenges facing the chemical industry and how these challenges affect the rest of the chemical enterprise, including academic research. Similarly, our industrial readers as well as our readers in academia and government have the opportunity to become

As the discipline of chemistry changes and expands its horizons at the interface of biology, medicine, and materials science, C&EN and the

Journal of Chemical Education, each in their own way, are essential elements of a toolkit for lifelong learning and education so essential to a rewarding career in chemistry.

educated about the latest basic research being carried out in colleges and universities across a wide variety of chemical subspecialties. C&EN reporters in the science/technology/ education department read dozens of scholarly journals, attend numerous conferences, talk to hundreds of researchers each year to seek out pioneering research, and then make it understandable to anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry. Industrial readers thus have a summary of the most important research, some of which may eventually find commercial applications; academic researchers are able to keep up with many subdisciplines of chemistry outside their own. And both industrial and academic readers will find in C&EN accounts of state, local, and federal government actions that affect their own work. Today, the Internet is transforming the way in which information is communicated. C&EN and publications like the Journal of Chemical Education are a critical part of this revolution. The on-line editions of C&EN and the Journal of Chemical Education provide an encyclopedia of information at the click of a mouse. The connections that a reader can make are instantaneous, interactive, and international. Sometimes links within an on-line edition are surprising and even exhilarating, underscoring just how rich a medium for learning the Internet can be. In a recent edition of C&EN Online, readers could go from the home page of a major chemical company to the home page of a Spanish artist whose work is being restored with the help of polymer chemists. The electronic age offers the possibility of bridging C. P. Snow’s two cultures in ways he could not possibly have imagined. I still believe that printed magazines have advantages over cyber-versions. These include portability, readability, and permanence, just to name a few tangible benefits. All of these benefits of the print edition still hold. Nonetheless, the combination of print and Internet editions of C&EN and other publications offers a news and information package that provides educators with an exciting window into still other transformations that the millennium will bring. As the discipline of chemistry changes and expands its horizons at the interface of biology, medicine, and materials science, C&EN and the Journal of Chemical Education, each in their own way, are essential elements of a toolkit for lifelong learning and education so essential to a rewarding career in chemistry.


1541

The State of Chemical Education: Where Are We and Where Are We

Recommend Documents