A Tweet pointed me to a Journal of Chemical Education paper written in open access (thank goodness). It was called Chemistry Education Research at a Crossroads: Where Do We Need to Go Now? By Ryan D. Sweeder*, Deborah G. Herrington, and Olivia M. Crandell in J Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 5, 1710–1715. In the opening paragraph it says;
“Although substantial progress has been made in identifying evidence-based strategies to support the learning of chemistry, we have yet to realize widespread systemic change regarding how chemistry is taught at the high school or college levels”.
it appears that with all the time and money spent in research in University Chemistry Education departments, the consequence of the research findings has little impact on the teaching of the subject in schools. Teachers are often teaching today in the same manner as they did 10 or more years ago. They only change if at the behest of their school manager, via outside inspection or changes in examination curriculum. In traditional practical work, there has been little change in the procedure of many standard practical sessions eg preparation of copper(II) sulfate crystals but see this.
“Although substantial progress has been made in identifying evidence-based strategies to support the learning of chemistry, we have yet to realize widespread systemic change regarding how chemistry is taught at the high school or college levels”.
it appears that with all the time and money spent in research in University Chemistry Education departments, the consequence of the research findings has little impact on the teaching of the subject in schools. Teachers are often teaching today in the same manner as they did 10 or more years ago. They only change if at the behest of their school manager, via outside inspection or changes in examination curriculum. In traditional practical work, there has been little change in the procedure of many standard practical sessions eg preparation of copper(II) sulfate crystals but see this.
I am not an academic, because I do not work at a university, but as the CLEAPSS (old) senior chemistry advisor, I think I have had more influence in teaching practical chemistry in UK schools than I would if I had worked in a University.
Similarly, David Paterson, with whom I wrote the book, has had similar success with integrating instructions. For this work we have both received the RSC prize for Education.
David also used short articles in Education in Chemistry and Declan Fleming used and improved on many of these practical ideas in Education in Chemistry.
- First with alternative practical methods to traditional methods, brought about by safety improvements demanded by adherence to UK Safety Law (usually the COSHH Regulations).
- Secondly, the small and microscale approach which has further implications on classroom management and pedagogy.
Similarly, David Paterson, with whom I wrote the book, has had similar success with integrating instructions. For this work we have both received the RSC prize for Education.
David also used short articles in Education in Chemistry and Declan Fleming used and improved on many of these practical ideas in Education in Chemistry.
We have both had an article published J Chem Ed. Prof Bruce Mattson liked my diffusing precipitates but it took us 3 years to get it into print. He had to use an extremely contrived before-and-after questionnaire amongst his students on the behest of a reviewer. It was finally accepted and the editor seemed to like it so much it was featured in the front cover (see Fig 1). David produced this a paper on Integrated Instructions.
Papers to these Journals are "peer reviewed". However, our peer reviewers are the teachers and technicians themselves repeating the techniques and the using integrated worksheets we had presented online. They spread the word and add ideas. I only use my twitter for chemistry and have over 5000 followers. David has a similar number.
Fig 2 shows the citations and views to my article in J Chem Ed in comparison to followers on Twitter
Papers to these Journals are "peer reviewed". However, our peer reviewers are the teachers and technicians themselves repeating the techniques and the using integrated worksheets we had presented online. They spread the word and add ideas. I only use my twitter for chemistry and have over 5000 followers. David has a similar number.
Fig 2 shows the citations and views to my article in J Chem Ed in comparison to followers on Twitter
Now I might have interested you in reading these publications by David and myself in the Journal of Chemical Education but Fig 3 shows the charge of $40. Reading Journals is an expensive business and Universities pay the fees for their students and lecturers. In the the UK, and I suspect elsewhere, teachers have no such benefit, although Education in Chemistry has review articles summarising research and ChemedX has articles from J Chem Ed. Occasionally, a paper is open access which is why I started this blog. |
I am sure my article is now lost in the mists of time. However, on social media the images can be repeated to a new audience. In the UK teachers can join the Royal Society of Chemistry which has a far-sighted attitude to Education as they realise the time-:Lpressures on teachers and technicians. It is just not possible for teachers to keep up with development on chemical education. Teachers who like to be up to date can read the short articles in Education in Chemistry and they can attend CPD sessions run by the education ambassadors and belong to the Secondary and Further Education Group, which organises a biennial symposium. |
However, there is another reason for why we have yet to realize widespread systemic change regarding how chemistry is taught at the high school and the paper contained the answer.
"… we must identify what constitutes success. Perhaps it is the ability of students to create causal mechanistic explanations for novel phenomena or to understand and interpret how complex chemical systems such as the environment respond to stresses. Defining “success” must then influence assessments such as the ACS Exams or Chemistry AP exams, which will influence WHAT is taught in chemistry courses."
In the UK, school success is defined by the GCSE and A level exam syllabus driven by the National Curriculum (different names in Scotland). Teachers cannot go wandering of into the Hinterland with Green Chemistry and Climate change because students will ask ”Do I need to know this for the exam?” and school managers will be questioning a teachers ability “to keep to the script” as exam success has an influence on school performance and funding.
It has taken me about 30 years to have a measure of acceptability of microscale ideas in school chemistry. The main issue in every country is relating these practical ideas with what is demanded for assessment in National examinations. If an establishment sets its own exams, it is not such a problem.
The main goal in developing microscale techniques was to make practicals safer so they would not be banned under Health and Safety Law but other advantages soon followed in taking a shorter time to perform, allowing more teaching time, answering issues which students find puzzling in chemistry, answering the green and sustainability agenda and yet be just as enjoyable to perform.
That article contained the concept of "Backward Design" and it urged me to think of a rather nice presentation (Fig 4) In which I work backwards in time. I realised I had started some ideas in the 1980s when I was teaching and to even remembering what I had to do in my school education. And that none of this journey planned at the outset.
"… we must identify what constitutes success. Perhaps it is the ability of students to create causal mechanistic explanations for novel phenomena or to understand and interpret how complex chemical systems such as the environment respond to stresses. Defining “success” must then influence assessments such as the ACS Exams or Chemistry AP exams, which will influence WHAT is taught in chemistry courses."
In the UK, school success is defined by the GCSE and A level exam syllabus driven by the National Curriculum (different names in Scotland). Teachers cannot go wandering of into the Hinterland with Green Chemistry and Climate change because students will ask ”Do I need to know this for the exam?” and school managers will be questioning a teachers ability “to keep to the script” as exam success has an influence on school performance and funding.
It has taken me about 30 years to have a measure of acceptability of microscale ideas in school chemistry. The main issue in every country is relating these practical ideas with what is demanded for assessment in National examinations. If an establishment sets its own exams, it is not such a problem.
The main goal in developing microscale techniques was to make practicals safer so they would not be banned under Health and Safety Law but other advantages soon followed in taking a shorter time to perform, allowing more teaching time, answering issues which students find puzzling in chemistry, answering the green and sustainability agenda and yet be just as enjoyable to perform.
That article contained the concept of "Backward Design" and it urged me to think of a rather nice presentation (Fig 4) In which I work backwards in time. I realised I had started some ideas in the 1980s when I was teaching and to even remembering what I had to do in my school education. And that none of this journey planned at the outset.