“It is clear that there is an enormous amount of activity in undergraduate chemistry education that is accelerating and intensifying.”
Patricia Thiel
Undergraduate coursework in chemistry is a requirement for many university degree programs outside of the disciplinary fields of chemistry and biochemistry. Students hoping to pursue careers as doctors, dentists, biologists, chemical engineers, and environmental scientists, among other professions, are often required to take an introductory general chemistry course, if not also introductory courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry. As a result, effective science education is a topic of perennial interest to the chemistry community.
An upcoming change in the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT)1 requirements is driving a recent increase in interest in the teaching of undergraduate chemistry (Brenner and Ringe 2012). New MCAT requirements may result in a change in the structure of chemistry as it is taught for pre-med students. When learning about some of the issues related to the MCAT modification, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Chemical Sciences Roundtable (CSR) felt it important to take the opportunity to examine some of the fundamental concerns and developments in the teaching of undergraduate chemistry.
On May 22-23, 2013, the CSR convened a public workshop, Undergraduate Chemistry Education, in Washington, D.C. The workshop explored drivers of science education reform and innovative approaches being implemented within chemistry departments to respond to some of these drivers. Workshop speakers described a variety of metrics and assessment tools for both drivers and innovations. Workshop discussions also explored barriers, opportunities, and realities of implementing reforms and modifications in today’s chemistry curriculum.
In her introductory remarks at the workshop, organizing committee member Patricia Thiel of Iowa State University noted the enormous amount of activity in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in general and in chemistry education in particular. Given this observation, the CSR aimed to hold an event that would be “valuable, fresh, and unique,” said Thiel. Several recent publications informed workshop planning discussions, including the NRC Board on Science Education Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (DBER report; NRC 2012); The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (PCAST 2012a); and a special issue publication of the journal Science, “Grand Challenges in Science Education” (McNutt 2013).
After considerable discussion and research, the workshop organizers decided to provide a forum focused on drivers of change, examples of educational innovation, and challenges and opportunities presented by chemistry education reforms. The focus on drivers of change was intended to raise awareness about some of the reasons why education reforms are being implemented and to illustrate that the motivation for change helps to define the metrics for measuring success. In planning the sessions devoted to educational innovation, the organizing committee decided to emphasize methods that can be used in large-scale (high-enrollment) situations such as the organic chemistry classes taught to nonchemistry majors at major universities. Some teaching methods are impractical with large groups even when they are “wonderfully successful” with smaller groups, Thiel explained. Therefore, she said, the workshop organizers decided to address the former
___________________
1 The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) oversees MCAT development and implementation. More information can be found on the AAMC webpage, MCAT2015 Exam for Students, https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/.
situation, because it affects large numbers of students and because larger courses are becoming increasingly common.
Thiel also noted the timeliness of this workshop given the announcement by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of a new program, Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER),2 which was released in the weeks leading up to the workshop. She acknowledged, too, that “there are different perspectives and controversies about almost every aspect of chemistry education. This meeting is not meant to cover every topic or every viewpoint or to represent every constituency but rather it is designed to help stimulate awareness and discussion.”
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP SUMMARY
This summary is organized into five chapters that are aligned with the major themes and goals of the workshop. Chapter 2 summarizes discussions on the drivers of change and the metrics used to identify the need for change in undergraduate chemistry education. The chapter begins with a broad look at the state of science in the United States and ends with drivers and lessons learned specific to chemistry education.
Chapter 3 describes innovative approaches to education reform, including key components and barriers to transforming large-scale undergraduate chemistry courses. Throughout the chapter, approaches and challenges with assessing the effectiveness of reforms is also discussed.
Chapter 4 describes the perspectives of four industry panelists on the state of undergraduate chemistry education and whether there is a need for change.
The final chapter recaps the final workshop panel discussion of five chemistry department chairs. The panel offered their insights and impressions on the state of undergraduate chemistry education, the types of innovations presented during the course of the workshop, and barriers encountered in trying to introduce novel instructional methods into the chemistry curricula at their institutions.
Although not comprehensive, this summary provides the readers with the key topics addressed during the workshop:
• Drivers of and barriers to change in chemistry education,
• Innovative course design for large-enrollment chemistry courses,
• Assessment tools needed to better evaluate the effect of novel course designs on chemistry learning,
• Industry and academic perspectives on the need for undergraduate chemistry education reform, and
• Potential next steps to more broadly disseminate innovative and effective chemistry course designs.
This publication is a factual summary of the presentations and discussions at the workshop. The views contained in the summary are those of the individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all the workshop participants, the organizing committee, or the National Research Council. The summary does not contain any findings or recommendations about needs and future directions, but focuses instead on issues identified by the speakers and workshop participants.
___________________
2 The WIDER program is overseen by NSF’s Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education; http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504889.
