Using Chemistry as a Medium for Energy Education: Suggestions for

In the Classroom

Using Chemistry as a Medium for Energy Education: Suggestions for Content and Pedagogy in a Nonmajors Course Joseph W. Shane,* Steven D. Bennett, and Rhonda Hirschl-Mike Department of Chemistry, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 *[email protected]

In recent editorials from Science and JCE, Holdren (1) and Moore (2) argued for complementary efforts between the natural and social sciences to develop sustainable energy practices in contemporary society. Science educators, they asserted, can play an important role by helping students to understand how fields such as economics, government and politics, and law interact with the natural sciences in order to establish rational energy policies, to promote technological innovation, and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. We have responded to their call by developing a course for nonscience majors designed around the chemistry, economics, politics, legal aspects, and environmental impacts of hydrocarbonbased fuels, nuclear power, and electrochemical cells. The course is structured around six fundamental questions: 1. How are hydrocarbons, nuclear materials, and electrochemical devices used to generate energy? 2. How do these three energy sources compare in terms of output and efficiency? 3. What technologies are used to harness these three forms of energy? 4. What are the associated political, legal, environmental, and economic implications of each type of energy? 5. How are these energy sources monitored and regulated both domestically and internationally? 6. How might we balance these and other sources of energy in the future?

These three energy sources were chosen for two reasons. First, in our experience, the basic level of chemical knowledge required to understand each source can easily be taught and understood by students in a one-semester course. In previous semesters when we included in-depth discussions of additional topics (e.g., population dynamics and ecology), the course tended to provide only a superficial treatment of chemistry. Our current approach warrants the chemistry label in our course catalog. Second, by including scientific and nonscientific aspects of energy, we are able to efficiently divide the teaching responsibilities between us and our students. As faculty, we are responsible for teaching scientific content, which is primarily done in a traditional lecture-style format with occasional group work and using customary assessments such as homework, quizzes, and exams. It is largely the students' responsibility, however, to understand and to teach one another about the various economic, political, legal, and environmental ramifications of hydrocarbon, nuclear, or electrochemical energy. We have used several 1166

Journal of Chemical Education

_

_

approaches for this purpose and two specific assignments will be discussed in more detail: small-group presentations given at appropriate points throughout the semester, and individually written, newspaper-style articles that are reviewed by nonscientist laypersons that are not enrolled in the course. The combination of energy-based content and shared teaching responsibilities makes our course rather unique. We encourage readers to review related courses that have been described by JCE authors since 1975 (3-7) as well as the variety of liberal arts chemistry textbooks that devote specific chapters to energy-related issues (8, 9); in particular, the ACS text, Chemistry in Context: Applying Chemistry to Society (10). The purposes here are to describe the students who enroll in this course, to explain how the curriculum is organized, and to argue for the effectiveness of the course based on student performance data and additional examples from the literature. Note that five sample documents from the course and five tables summarizing assessment criteria and recent student performance data are provided in the online supporting information. We reference these materials throughout the article and we suggest that readers review them in order to corroborate our assertions about the course and to find materials that can be downloaded and modified. Also note that because the assessments described in this article were administered to all students and were designed for course development and improvement, we were neither required to use our university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process nor to construct informed consent forms for students and the laypersons that reviewed their newspaper-style articles. Readers should consult their IRB before using similar assessments and assignments. Student Population and Diagnostic Survey Results The course is entitled Chemistry 103: A Cultural Approach and it is one of several options allowing students to meet their science requirements within our university's general education curriculum. The course meets 3 h per week, it does not include a laboratory component, and it has no prerequisites. First-year to senior-level students enroll in the course and their majors typically include elementary education or one of the majors offered by either the humanities division of the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Business. A minority of students in the course have had one year of high school chemistry and several express anxiousness and fear of chemistry in the free-response sections on a diagnostic survey (sample course document 1 in the online supporting information) that we administer at the

_

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010 pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 10.1021/ed100023t Published on Web 08/30/2010

In the Classroom

beginning of the semester. In addition to describing their educational background, the survey gauges students' confidence with selected chemistry and energy-related concepts by using a three-level response code (0 = I don't know anything about this topic; 1 = I have heard of this, but I'll need some review; 2 = I am confident that I understand this topic). A recent set of data from one section of the course is shown in the online supporting information Tables 1 and 2. Please note that students were required to justify responses of 1 or 2 with labeled diagrams, definitions, written explanations, or specific examples in order to corroborate their self-reported levels of understanding. In rare instances where students consistently responded with a 2, but provided neither further evidence of their understanding nor accurate information, then those survey data were excluded from the analysis. Similarly, students responding with a 0 to all questions were also excluded because we expect our students to be able to provide explanations (even inaccurate or unscientific ones) to at least some of the survey questions. Although some students provided evidence that they understood several basic concepts, we teach the course with the assumption that they have little prior knowledge of chemistry or energy-related issues based on data such as these. General Course Description and Nontraditional Assessments Given the students' limited confidence with chemistry, we devote the first several weeks to teaching fundamental topics such as classification of matter, atomic and ionic structure, bonding and molecular structure, the first law of thermodynamics, unit conversions, and basic principles of stoichiometry. These topics provide a basic chemical vocabulary that is used at various points throughout the remainder of the course. Also during the first week, we organize the class into groups of three or four and allow the students to choose from a list of topics that they will present to the class beginning in the third week of the semester. Because the data indicate that the students are largely unfamiliar with energy-related issues, we decide on the topics beforehand and present them to the students via informally worded and compelling questions (we hope) that help to spark the students' interest. Examples of these questions include the following: • What is “clean” air and who sets the standards? • Who has nuclear weapons and what means are used to monitor them? • To what degree can hybrid cars help solve our energy problems? • How dependent are we on rechargeable batteries and mobile technologies?

Each group is provided with a list of relevant scientific concepts to include and we coordinate their presentations with our class lectures. For example, the presentation on air quality and the U.S. Clean Air Act is used to either introduce or reinforce discussions of mixtures, gases, and chemical formulas and electron dot structures of simple molecules, such as water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The nuclear weapons presentation often introduces fission and fusion in addition to describing weapons design, uranium enrichment, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Table 1 outlines the approximate week-by-week sequence of lecture and presentation topics from a recent section of the course.

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

_

We note that, in practice, it is difficult to have perfect coordination between our lessons and the group presentations and that we often need to provide assistance and resources to students (e.g., book chapters, Web sites, personal tutorials) in instances where their presentations introduce new chemical topics to their classmates. Sample course document 2 in the online supporting information is a handout that we provide to students to describe the guidelines and assessment criteria for the group presentations. As indicated, the presentations last approximately 30 min and each group is required to prepare an electronic slide show (usually with PowerPoint) that can be posted on our university's online course management system, and to provide a one-page fact sheet to their classmates. The instructor critiques the slides and fact sheets prior to the presentations to ensure scientific accuracy and that a sufficient amount of chemistry is included to complement discussions about laws, treaties, economic figures and projections, and regulating organizations. Content from the presentations is incorporated into quizzes and exams, which promotes whole-class involvement and individual accountability. Students who serve as the audience are given the fact sheet as well as a copy of the assessment criteria; they evaluate the presentation and submit these evaluations at the end of class. In addition to rating each criterion, students are asked to provide constructive, written feedback to each group. The instructor uses the same criteria, collects the students' ratings and comments, and assigns a final grade for each presentation. Group members are given the same grade for the presentations except in those cases where students inform the instructor (as has happened several times) about members who do not contribute a reasonable amount of time and effort. Finally, the instructor briefly meets with each group to summarize their classmates' comments, to inform them about their final grade, and to provide advice on improving presentation skills. The second nontraditional assessment is a newspaper-style article in which students write about an energy-related topic (same topic as their group presentation) and have their article reviewed and evaluated by laypersons who are not enrolled in the course and who do not have scientific training. Each student identifies and secures the permission of two members from a convenient target audience (typically peers, family members, or co-workers with no scientific background) within one week after deciding on their topic at the beginning of the semester. The students are required to communicate both the underlying chemical and scientific principles and the corresponding societal significance to their lay audience in a concise and comprehensive manner while not advocating a specific position as would be done in a newspaper editorial. This is an exercise in scientific journalism the benefits of which have been previously described in the literature (11-15). Table 3 in the online supporting information shows the grading criteria for students' articles and sample course document 3 outlines the general guidelines for assignments that precede submission of their articles for grading. Note that the point values given to each assignment vary depending on the instructor. As shown in the online supporting information, two assignments precede their final drafts. First, after two or three weeks into the semester, students write an annotated bibliography and give a description of their articles and the audience for whom they are writing. Second, students bring rough drafts of their articles for an in-class peer review approximately halfway through

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

_


1167

In the Classroom Table 1. Sample Sequence of Lecture and Presentation Topics Week

Chemistry-Based Lecture Topics

Energy-Related Presentation Topics

1

Classification of matter and phase changes; Atomic structure, isotopes, and atomic mass

N/A

2

Bohr models of atoms and ions; Using the Periodic Table of the Elements

N/A

3

Metals and nonmetals; Ionic and covalent bonding

Air quality and the Clean Air Act: pollution, particulate matter (PM), smog, volatile organic compounds (VOC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

4

Electron dot structures of simple molecules; Basic inorganic nomenclature

Global warming/climate change: greenhouse effect, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Kyoto Protocols

5

First Law of Thermodynamics; Units for measuring energy and power

Pros and cons of coal: chemical composition of coal, worldwide distribution of reserves, power plant design, “clean” coal technologies, carbon dioxide sequestration

6

Unit conversions; The mole, Avogadro's number, and molar mass

Alternative hydrocarbon fuels: corn-based and cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel

7

Exam I; Basic organic nomenclature; Hydrocarbons and combustion reactions

Potential for renewable sources of energy: solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal

8

Balancing chemical equations; Bond energies and heats of combustion; Petroleum refining and fractional distillation

Demand for fossil fuels in India and China

9

Basic types of radiation (R, β, γ); Nuclear equations

Pros and cons of nuclear power: power plant design, Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC)

10

Fission, fusion, and chain reactions; Mass defect and E = mc2

Basic designs of nuclear weapons: fission and fusion weapons, radiological dispersion devices, uranium enrichment, Department of Energy (DOE), IAEA

11

Decay series and half-life; Biological effects of radiation exposure

Nuclear waste transport and disposal: high- and low-level waste, Yucca Mountain repository

12

Exam II; Basic definitions for electrochemistry; Oxidation and reduction half reactions

Hybrid electric and plug-in vehicles

13

Cell diagrams; Standard reduction potentials

Design and economic impact of rechargeable batteries

14

Calculating cell potentials; Charge, Faraday's constant, and free energy

Economic methods for reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels: gasoline taxes, cap-and-trade policies

15

Comparing energy output and efficiency; Final exam review

Energy policies of presidential candidates

the semester. Sample course document 4 in the online supporting information provides more details. Students are given identification numbers for their rough drafts and each student is expected to have completed part A of the “Author Self-Evaluation” (shown in the online supporting information) prior to the in-class peer review. The instructor organizes the students into groups according to their energyrelated topic, gathers the rough drafts by topic, and redistributes them to another group for review. Each student begins with one rough draft and completes, silently and individually, the “Evaluator #1” column of the “Peer Review Criteria” shown in the online supporting information. After they complete the review, the students fold this column underneath the remaining columns and give the peer review sheet and rough draft to another group member. This process continues until each draft has been reviewed three times. The instructor then collects the drafts and redistributes them to the authors who then complete part B of the “Author Self-Evaluation”. 1168


_


_

Students are expected to revise their rough drafts before submitting their articles to their lay readers who evaluate their writing according to the letter and criteria shown in sample course document 5 in the online supporting information. The lay readers, of course, must assume that the information in the articles is both accurate and fair. Students submit the two nonscientist reviews along with their final drafts to the instructor who uses criteria shown previously in Table 3 in the online supporting information to assign final grades. A recent set of student performance data for selected chemistry concepts and skills is provided in the next section along with a discussion of these students' oral presentation and writing skills using the criteria described previously. Summary of Recent Student Performance Data Exams, homework, and quizzes constitute approximately two-thirds of the course credit. Because the newspaper-style articles (including annotated bibliographies, rough and final


_


In the Classroom

drafts, and layperson reviews) require more individual effort, these are weighted more heavily than the group presentations for the remaining one-third of the point total. Table 4 in the online supporting information summarizes recent performance data from open-ended exam problems for selected chemical concepts. Exams also include multiple-choice questions for simple concepts and definitions and short essay questions for energy-related topics. Although this is hardly an exhaustive analysis of examination data, it does serve as an indicator of students' understanding of several of the more challenging and abstract chemical concepts from the course. As mentioned previously, sample course document 2 in the online supporting information shows the criteria for assessing the group presentations. Nearly every group had one dimension of their presentation that was deemed to be unsatisfactory or several dimensions that were rated only satisfactory. Common shortcomings included excessively long presentations, explanations that were needlessly complex, and poor or no transitions between speakers. Given the general nature of the assessment criteria for the presentations, a table summarizing the students' performance is unnecessary. This point will be discussed further in the conclusions section. More precise insights, however, are afforded by analyzing the students' scientific journalism skills. As the data in Table 5 in the online supporting information indicate, a majority of the students were able to communicate both the science and societal significance of their topics to their lay readers. A majority of their shortcomings were in general aspects of writing such as effective transitions, grammar, spelling, and accurate citations. The feedback from the nonscientist readers was largely positive and they indicated that they learned a great deal from reading the students' papers. Conclusions and Future Directions On the basis of the data summarized in the previous section, we are confident that our current curriculum represents an appropriate balance of chemistry and its cultural significance vis-a-vis contemporary issues related to hydrocarbon-based fuels, nuclear power, and electrochemical cells. The data also suggest that students can be successful in this setting despite having a limited background in chemistry. A majority of students grasped fundamental chemical principles and were able to communicate aspects of chemistry and energy to both their classmates and to nonexpert audiences in verbal and written form. There appears to be room for improvement, however, in the students' general writing skills as well as in the amount and quality of information that they provide during class presentations. In future courses, we will require certain students to seek assistance with their articles at our university's writing center and we will explicitly model good presentation skills during the first two weeks of the semester. We will consider inviting colleagues from our journalism program or local newspaper writers to give a presentation about writing for lay audiences. Another possibility would be to teach an interdisciplinary course with colleagues from our English or Communications Departments. We also intend to write a more detailed rubric to assess the students' individual and group presentation skills. The criteria in sample course document 2 in the online supporting information might be too general to generate meaningful feedback and data. There is also the potential problem of obtaining honest


_

assessments from the nonscientist reviewers; in particular, peers, family members, and co-workers who might not be comfortable with critiquing the students' writing. Possibilities in the future include having the reviewers submit their comments in sealed and signed envelopes (unlike our current procedure of having the comments submitted via the students), using a Web-based assessment system, or identifying laypersons (e.g., a writing course in the English Department) who do not know the students. To date, we have not administered a postcourse survey to determine whether students' attitudes about chemistry and its societal implications have changed as a result of our curriculum. We have received some feedback from the required university course evaluations, but an addendum specific to our course would be useful, especially given students' general trepidation at the beginning of the semester. From a research perspective, it would be interesting to compare our approach to a more traditional one to address potential criticisms about the quality and depth of the students' chemical knowledge and their ability to apply that knowledge to social concerns. However, because we have developed our approach over the past several years and we believe (and have provided some evidence for) that our curriculum is effective, we would be concerned about the ethics of applying such an experimental design. There is, however, a substantial corpus of research in science education that provides insight into students' abilities to apply scientific evidence and reasoning in socioscientific contexts (16-19). Our work in chemistry will certainly benefit from this literature. We believe that we are enacting Holdren and Moore's urgent call to incorporate energy-based themes into the science curriculum, albeit for an audience limited to nonscience majors in a university setting. In addition to improving our existing curriculum, our next task is to develop upper-division or capstone seminar courses for our chemistry and other science majors. In this case, we will certainly go beyond the basic chemistry presented here. We also believe that the content and teaching strategies from this course could easily be adapted to secondary classrooms and to similar university courses. We encourage chemical and science educators to use and expand upon our suggestions presented here and to communicate with us about your ideas. Literature Cited 1. Holdren, J. P. Science 2007, 315, 737. 2. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 743. 3. Jordan, T. Energy and the Environment. SENCER Model Course, 2002.http://www.sencer.net/Resources/pdfs/Models_Print_Web_2004/ Energy_Model.pdf (accessed Aug 2010). 4. Trumbore, C. N.; Bevenour, J.; Scantlebury, K. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1012. 5. Taylor, H. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 185. 6. Kimmel, H. S.; Tomkins, R. P.; Perez, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 798. 7. Moore, J. W.; Moore, E. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 288. 8. Snyder, C. H. The Extraordinary Chemistry of Ordinary Things, 4th ed.; Wiley: New York, 2002. 9. Waldron, K. The Chemistry of Everything; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007. 10. Eubanks, L. P.; Middlecamp, C. H.; Heltzel, C. E.; Keller, S. W. Chemistry in Context: Applying Chemistry to Society, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2009.


_


_


1169

In the Classroom 11. Shane, J. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008, 38, 26. 12. Hume, D. L.; Carson, K. M.; Hodgen, B.; Glaser, R. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 662. 13. Mysliwiec, T. H.; Shibley, I.; Dunbar, M. E. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2003, 33, 24. 14. Hallowell, C.; Holland, M. J. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1998, 28, 29. 15. McMillan, V.; Huerta, D. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2002, 32, 241. 16. Zeidler, D. L.; Sadler, T. D.; Applebaum, S.; Callahan, B. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 46, 74.

1170


_


_

17. Sadler, T. D.; Amirshokoohi, A.; Kazempour, M.; Allspaw, K. M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006, 43, 353. 18. Sadler, T. D.; Zeidler, D. L. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2005, 42, 112. 19. Sadler, T. D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 513.

Supporting Information Available Sample course materials; supplementary tables of assessment criteria; student data from a recent class. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


_


Using Chemistry as a Medium for Energy Education: Suggestions for

Recommend Documents