National Academies Press: OpenBook

Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary (2014)

Chapter: 2 Drivers and Metrics

« Previous: 1 Introduction and Overview
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

2

Drivers and Metrics

“We all realize if the public were chemically educated, the world could be a much better place. And yet, we do not do as much as we could to address students in the life sciences, in the humanities, and [other disciplines].”

Miguel Garcia-Garibay

“Is there something wrong with chemistry education?” asked session chair Miguel Garcia-Garibay of the University of California, Los Angeles. “Are there things that need to be changed or are there simply opportunities to adopt new technologies, new skill sets from undergraduate students that perhaps could help us modify things? Is the need for more STEM professionals sufficient to make us rethink how we address undergraduate chemical education?” Garcia-Garibay asked these questions to start a discussion aimed at laying out the logic underpinning efforts to reform the way chemistry is taught to undergraduates, to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors as well as those in disciplines that use chemistry as an essential component of their skill set, such as pre-med students.

This chapter summarizes the presentations of five speakers at the workshop that addressed various aspects of why there might be a need to reform chemistry education and the ensuing open discussion. Alexandra Killewald of Harvard University discussed whether American science is in decline. Next, S. James Gates, Jr., of the University of Maryland and a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), provided PCAST’s perspective on the needs for STEM education and a STEM-educated workforce. Anne McCoy, of The Ohio State University and Chair of the American Chemical Society’s (ACS’s) Committee on Professional Training (CPT), described the role of the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs in setting standards for undergraduate chemistry education. The potential impact of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) revisions on undergraduate chemistry education, one of the catalysts for this workshop, was discussed by Joel Shulman, of the University of Cincinnati and a member of the CPT. Last, Susan Hixson, who until her retirement in 2012 served as a program director in National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Division of Undergraduate Education, concluded the presentations with some lessons learned from NSF’s experiences in undergraduate chemistry education.

IS AMERICAN SCIENCE IN DECLINE?

“Sometimes I think we are so focused on thinking about what is wrong with American science we do not take a step back to think about the fact the United States is actually the undisputed leader of contemporary world science in a way that is unprecedented in history,” said Alexandra Killewald. Killewald cited statistics showing that the United States accounts for 40 percent of global research and development spending, 38 percent of new patented technology, and 45 percent of the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and physiology and medicine. Over one-third of scientific publications worldwide come from U.S. researchers, almost half of all citations are to papers written by U.S. authors, and nearly two-thirds of the papers published in highly cited journals come from U.S. laboratories. In addition, 15 of the world’s top 20 universities are located the United States. “The influence of the U.S. on global science is enormous,” Killewald emphasized.

If, as the statistics suggest, the United States is a global leader in science, why is there worry about the state of American science? Killewald and her colleague Yu Xie, of the University of Michigan, coauthored a book, Is American Science in Decline? (Xie and Killewald 2012), that takes a look at this issue. Killewald and Xie termed the position that society should be concerned about the state of American science as the “alarmist view.” Killewald credited the alarmist view to the National Research Council’s report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (NRC 2007). The NRC report raised the prospect of an impending shortage of U.S. scientists, which could affect American economic competiveness, said Killewald. She characterized the NRC report as “one of the

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

most significant reports for U.S. science policy in recent history,” noting that it led quickly to more than two dozen bills aimed at strengthening American science and the creation of a number of task forces to investigate this concern. Addressing whether there is evidence for the alarmist view, Killewald said, “to some extent, the answer is certainly yes,” and she cited three main factors. First, the length of time between a Ph.D. program and the first independent science job is increasing. The number of years it takes to complete a Ph.D., the number of postdoctoral positions that emerging scientists need before securing their first job, and the number of postdoctoral fellows are all on the rise, explained Killewald. Second, there are unfavorable labor market outcomes for scientists. New scientists’ wages are falling relative to the wages of other similarly trained professions, particularly lawyers and doctors. “Falling relative financial rewards might be one reason” why students might consider alternative careers to science, Killewald noted.

A third factor, one that Killewald says receives the most attention, is the idea that international competition, especially from continental East Asia, is threatening the dominant position of U.S. science. The average annual growth rate in output of science and engineering publications of eastern Asian countries far exceeds that of the United States, Europe, and Japan (see Table 2-1). Killewald stated that international growth in science is not “a prediction of doomsday,” but an indication that the gap between the United States and other countries participating in global science” is narrowing. In terms of academic performance, schoolchildren in countries with economic resources similar to those of the United States, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, score substantially higher in math and science than those in the United States on a gross domestic product (GDP) per-capita basis. “This is the kind of result I see most commonly in the popular media,” she said. However, Killewald maintained that “this picture is not one of failure to perform by the U.S., but it is a picture of average performance, and we might think we should do better than that.”

TABLE 2-1 Average Annual Growth Rate (%) in Science and Engineering Article Output

United
States
EU-15 Japan East Asia-4
Biology

    1988-1992 1.7 6.4 4.6 17.7
    1992-2003 1.1 4.1 3.9 16.0

Chemistry
    1988-1992 4.2 5.7 6.6 33.3
    1992-2003 1.2 2.3 2.4 16.1

Physics
    1988-1992 5.1 10.6 10.9 19.7
    1992-2003 0.3 3.4 4.4 14.3

Mathematics
    1988-1992 -2.0 3.2 -8.1 18.1
    1992-2003 1.4 6.7 8.0 14.2

SOURCE: Harvard University Press.

Another area of concern is whether the United States relies too heavily on immigrant scientists. Killewald cited statistics showing that the physical sciences relative to other subfields have long had a slightly higher reliance on foreign-born scientists and continue to do so. In fact, the percentage of native-born Americans going into the physical sciences has declined steadily since 1960. As far as the student population is concerned, the fraction of foreign-born bachelor’s degree students in science is only about 6 percent and that number has been steady since the late 1970s. It is only at the level of graduate degrees that there is an increase in the number of foreign-born students.

Despite the evidence in favor of the alarmist view, Killewald said there are “some real sparks of strength in the U.S. scientific picture.” For example, the American scientific labor force is growing as a share of the total workforce. Also, in surveys of the general public, “scientist” continues to be regarded as a high-prestige occupation. In fact, the American public continues to express confidence in the leaders of the scientific community and to endorse public funding for basic scientific research. Academically, U.S. schoolchildren’s scores on standardized tests in math and science are rising, and more U.S. students are completing advanced coursework. Killewald said that an increasing number of high school students are taking and passing Advanced Placement tests in science and math and an increasing number are taking calculus in high school.

There has also been no decline in the pursuit of scientific higher education over the past 40 years. Citing data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 1972, 1980, 1988), Killewald noted that the percentage of students receiving bachelor’s degrees who are in the top quartile of math achievement in high school has risen substantially over the past 40 years, with a nearly 50 percent increase among women getting bachelor’s degrees (see Table 2-2). What has not changed much over that time is the percentage of men and women receiving science-related bachelor’s degrees—nearly a third of men and approximately 13 percent of women. However, the percentage of students getting bachelor’s degrees with a physical science major has fallen by over 50 percent for both women and men. The physical

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

TABLE 2-2 Bachelor’s Degree and Science Major Attainment

Male Female
1972 1982 1992 1972 1982 1992
Bachelor’s degree (%) 27.8 30.7 30.5 23.9 29.8 36.9

Among top 25% in math
achievement

54.5 61.2 64.3 53.5 70.4 75.9
Science major given
bachelor’s degree (%)
28.7 31.4 28.3 10.2 13.7 13.2

Among top 25% in math
achievement

36.9 41.5 38.8 15.7 20.9 19.3

Physical science

7.4 3.4 3.1 3.6 1.3 1.6

Life science

9.6 5.0 8.1 4.6 5.3 8.3

SOURCE: Harvard University Press.

sciences are losing some ground to engineering for males and the life sciences for females. Killewald said that the same trend appears to be holding true for graduate degrees, both in science overall and the physical sciences specifically.

Returning to her original question—Is American science in decline?—Killewald said she and Xiu contend the answer is a qualified no. “We think the evidence of health in American science generally outweighs the concerns.” She acknowledged that “the question of whether you think American science is doing well or not depends on your point of comparison.” From an international perspective, it could be said that America’s leadership in science may soon be challenged. “It is easy to see looking in your rearview mirror that other folks are catching up fast.” From a historical perspective, U.S.-based science is not in decline, but rather is “doing as well as or better than before in terms of our own performance.” As a final thought, Killewald emphasized that it is important to remember that there are collaboration benefits arising from globalization in addition to competition costs. “The rise in science in other countries brings new perspectives to the scientific enterprise” that can result in scientific advancement and benefit the American people.

Matthew Tarr, from the University of New Orleans, commented that he has seen a dramatic increase in the number of chemistry majors and students taking general chemistry courses over the past 3 years and asked if Killewald had more recent data on national trends. She replied that data from the cohort of students who graduated from high school in 2002 were not yet available when she and Xie wrote their book, but that this was likely to be the case given the rise in students going into the medical sciences. She added that impacts of the Great Recession are likely to include students placing an increased emphasis on taking courses that will lead to jobs, and she expected that fact to increase enrollment in scientific courses.

David Harwell from the ACS commented that while the supply of graduates with science degrees may have remained constant or increased in some areas, the demand side of the equation does not look as good. Research by the ACS indicates that innovation is down compared with that in other countries, unemployment rates among chemists are up, and salaries have fallen in inflation-adjusted terms. Killewald responded that these data support the idea that the problem is one of oversupply, not a shortage in some fields and particularly in academia.

A PCAST PERSPECTIVE ON STEM EDUCATION IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM

S. James Gates, Jr., described the role of PCAST, a civilian advisory group that makes science policy recommendations to the President, and PCAST’s activities and positions on science education and workforce. During the Obama Administration, PCAST has produced several reports focused on STEM education and workforce: Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future (PCAST 2010) and Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Gradu-

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

ates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (PCAST 2012a). Referring to Killewald’s presentation, Gates said that he and his PCAST colleagues agree with the alarmist view, given their prospective, rather than retrospective, view of the health of the U.S. science and technology enterprise. Of particular concern, he said, is the decreased amount the country is investing in science, noting U.S. investment in science has now fallen to around 3 percent of GDP. Compared with the rest of the world, this figure is “middling,” said Gates. Even more concerning to PCAST is that the balance between high-risk/high-reward funding and low-risk funding is suboptimal for the nation’s future. In response to these science funding concerns, PCAST issued a report in November 2012, Transformation and Opportunity: The Future of the U.S. Research Enterprise (PCAST 2012b), that laid out a set of metrics that funding agencies might begin to use as they think about how to fund research.

Gates acknowledged that there are number of different ways to examine U.S. performance in STEM relative to that of its global competitors. Some metrics suggest that the country is doing fine. However, one signal that the nation is underperforming emerges from evaluations of what PCAST calls the STEM-capable workforce. The STEM-capable workforce ranges from STEM professionals in STEM jobs, such as academic research, to STEM-trained professionals in non-STEM jobs that require STEM skills, such as health care or advanced manufacturing (PCAST 2012a). The latter type of jobs “are going unfilled today in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and it is the lack of Americans with the STEM training to fill these jobs that concerns PCAST,” Gates said. The STEM skill set is growing in value in the United States, but employers are having difficulty finding people with the adequate expertise for these positions.

PCAST’s 2012 Transformation and Opportunity report focuses on how to make sure that the benefits of STEM education extend to the entire American economy to create the possibility that the American Dream will be extended to another generation, said Gates. The report is not about how to “reproduce” academic researchers more efficiently. Concerning the issue of underperformance, Gates discussed trends in the attainment of college degrees. Among 25- to 64-year-olds, the United States ranked third, according to 2008 data, behind Japan and Canada in terms of percentage of the population with college degrees. But, the United States dropped to ninth among 25- to 34-year-olds. “The current youngest generations of Americans in the workforce are technically less well educated” than the generation preceding them, said Gates. “This is the first time in over 100 years this statement could be made.” These data are worrisome, he added, because the nation’s economy has entered a period when the wage premium associated with a college degree is increasing rather dramatically.

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, PCAST found that between 2008 and 2018, STEM occupations will increase from 5.0 percent of total jobs in the United States to 5.3 percent, an increase equivalent to one million jobs from growth alone. In addition, over one million jobs that exist currently will need replacement employees to account for turnover in the workforce. In other words, the projected number of life, physical, and social science technician job openings will far exceed the number of STEM-trained individuals to fill those positions. PCAST also found that the gap between supply and demand will vary by discipline. For example, there are some signs that the nation may be overproducing people trained in the biological sciences and underproducing in computer sciences.

In its studies, PCAST found that retention and diversity problems in STEM undergraduate education are significant, said Gates. Fewer than 40 percent of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree (PCAST 2012a). High-performing students frequently cite uninspiring introductory courses as a reason for changing majors. PCAST found that low-performing students with a high interest and aptitude in STEM face difficulty in introductory courses resulting from insufficient math preparation and help. Many of the low-performing students cite an unwelcoming atmosphere from faculty teaching STEM courses as their reason for switching majors. Women and members of minority groups now constitute approximately 75 percent of college students, but only 45 percent earn STEM degrees. Women and minorities are leaving STEM majors at higher rates than other groups of students, said Gates, thus constituting an expanding pool of untapped talent.

The question of how to diversify STEM pathways is a big one. The economy is entering a period in which people will not have one career for 40 years but rather will need a broad set of STEM skills that will allow them to adapt to new opportunities and even undergo retraining at some point in their working lives. Gates contended that this shift will require that the current pipeline model of STEM education change to accommodate multiple on-ramps and off-ramps for people to get into and out of STEM training.

To address these STEM education and workforce challenges, PCAST made four recommendations in the Engaged to Excel report. The first, which Gates predicted would be a challenge for today’s faculty members, is to catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices, that is, evidence-based learning. PCAST’s goal is that successful programs should be expanded to reach 10 to 20 percent of the nation’s 230,000 STEM faculty over the next 5 years, by providing training to existing faculty but also by requiring that all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows supported by federal training grants will receive instruction in modern, evidence-based teaching methods. PCAST acknowledged in its report that making this transition has a cost and recommended that the federal government provide $10 million to $15 million a year for the next 5 years to fund

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

this effort. PCAST also called for the development of metrics by which institutions can gauge their progress toward excellence in STEM education.

The second recommendation calls for undergraduate STEM programs to replace standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses. This recommendation comes out of the premise that students who engage in research early in college are more likely to persist in STEM majors. Gates pointed to the Freshman Research Initiative at the University of Texas1 as an example of a program demonstrating the value of early research opportunities for retaining students in STEM degree programs. PCAST noted that research universities and small colleges should form collaborations to provide all students with access to research opportunities. PCAST’s third recommendation says the nation should launch an experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the math preparation gap. This recommendation came from the fact that college-level skills in mathematics and computation are a gateway to other STEM fields but that nearly 60 percent of students enter college without the math skills needed for STEM majors, something that Gates personally finds appalling. Addressing this gap will provide access to great opportunities to the 14 percent of 12th-grade students who express interest in STEM fields but do not currently have the math skills to pursue those interests.

The final PCAST recommendation calls for the creation of partnerships among all stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers. It is critical to engage all of the end users of STEM-trained individuals. This call will require efforts that must go beyond academia to be successful, said Gates.

In response to a question from Mark Cardillo of the Dreyfus Foundation about the role that online courses can play, Gates said that PCAST looked specifically at massive open online courses, also known as MOOCs, and supports leveraging information technology to improve the efficiency of teaching. Technology, however, is not going to replace teachers or professors, noted Gates. It can empower educators and radically change the environment in which they function. The key will be to figure out how to engage this technology in a way that leverages what individual teachers do to improve STEM education.

David Harwell of the ACS asked if PCAST had considered how to fill the need for people with associate- or certification-level training to fill jobs in fields such as chemical manufacturing and if there was any thought given to pushing the 14 percent of students who have a high interest in STEM careers but poor math skills toward programs that would fill those needs. Gates replied that he personally is not in favor of pushing students in any direction. “I want the students to be active agents in making choices,” he said. “After all, that is the great thing about democracy and the type of economic system we have. You want to offer variegated choices to people so individuals will make the choice they see as best for themselves.” Gates noted that the Obama Administration believes the way to address this issue is to upgrade the community college system, an approach that PCAST supports.

ROLE OF THE ACS GUIDELINES FOR BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS

Ann McCoy discussed the role of the CPT and the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs. ACS established the CPT in 1935 to assume responsibility for properly accrediting institutions wishing to grant undergraduate chemistry degrees. Today, the committee’s goals are to promote and assist in the development of high standards of excellence in all aspects of postsecondary education, undertake studies important to the maintenance of these standards, and to collect and make available information about trends and developments in modern chemical education. In addition to establishing and administering the degree accrediting program, the CPT devotes a significant amount of time conducting surveys to understand current trends in areas related to the professional education of chemists. The committee also compiles the ACS Directory of Graduate Research and coordinates workshops and other activities that bring together members of the chemistry education community. The CPT is currently in the process of revising the bachelor’s degree guidelines.

The CPT sets the ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs in chemistry. The CPT uses the guidelines as the basis for approving degree programs; currently, 669 programs are accredited under this process. The chairs of individual departments then certify students who meet the approved program curricula. She said that the approved programs benefit both the students who receive the certified bachelor’s of science degrees and all other students taking classes in those departments because of the supportive infrastructure that must exist to become an approved program. In fact, while the number of students receiving certified bachelor’s degrees has risen slightly since 1950, the number of overall chemistry degree graduates has more than tripled during the past six decades. McCoy noted that although about half of the students receiving certified degrees come from a small number of the institutions with the largest graduate programs, the guidelines serve to provide a level of uniformity in programs and standards of excellence that benefit all students, as well as the profession as a whole.

The guidelines include requirements for institutional involvement, faculty and staff numbers and their contact with students, and infrastructure, but McCoy focused her talk on the curriculum requirements in the guidelines. The guidelines are not designed to constrain programs by mandating a set curriculum, but to provide opportunities to gain the resources and infrastructure needed and guidance in terms

___________________

1 See http://fri.cns.utexas.edu/.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

of what it means to educate professional chemists, explained McCoy. Opportunities for undergraduate research are an essential component of the curriculum guidelines, along with student skill development and departmental self-assessment in terms of which aspects of a curriculum are working and which could use improvement. The overall philosophy of the guidelines is not to be overly prescriptive in terms of specific course requirements or laboratory experiences, but instead to provide a scaffold on which programs develop a curriculum that is appropriate for their students.

There are specific course requirements, but even those are fairly loose, said McCoy. Students need to take a foundation course in each of the five traditional areas of chemistry (organic, inorganic, biochemistry, analytical, and physical), and four in-depth courses based on that foundational experience. The guidelines do not detail the precise nature of those in-depth courses. Students also need a minimum of 400 laboratory hours after general chemistry, and those hours need to cover at least four of the five traditional areas. In addition, all nine of the required courses and the required labs must be offered annually, a requirement that can be challenging for smaller chemistry programs to meet but is deemed necessary to ensure that students can graduate in 4 years. McCoy noted that programs are encouraged to include contemporary topics in chemistry and to employ a variety of approaches in delivering this curriculum. The 2008 revisions of the guidelines placed a stronger emphasis on professional skills such as problem solving, using the chemical literature, laboratory safety, oral and written communications, working in teams, and ethics.

The CPT is currently in the process of revising the guidelines. McCoy expects the new guidelines to be adopted in 2014. The revision process began with a survey of approved programs on the impacts of the 2008 guidelines (results are accessible through the CPT website).2 Overall, the survey indicated that curricular changes based on the 2008 guidelines were modest, likely reflecting the short time period since the 2008 guidelines were introduced and the additional fiscal stresses felt by departments since 2008. Approximately two-thirds of the programs had no trouble offering an approved curriculum, but 25 percent of the programs reported occasional difficulties. In response to this finding, the proposed revisions call for increasing the minimum faculty size from four to five individuals by 2025. McCoy noted that the CPT had proposed this same change for inclusion in the 2008 guidelines, but backed off in response to community pushback.

In January 2013, the CPT issued a white paper on possible guideline revisions with the goal of soliciting comments from as broad a swath of the community as possible.3 One area in which the CPT received significant input concerned courses that are largely or exclusively offered online. A year ago, more than 10 percent of the programs that responded to the survey offered online general chemistry courses. Only a few percent also offered foundation and in-depth courses online. Over half of the surveyed programs felt that online courses were inappropriate, though about a quarter of the programs believed that the online venue could serve a role in providing introductory courses. A very small percentage of programs thought online courses were appropriate for meeting degree certification requirements. Fewer than 5 percent of programs offer online laboratory courses. While over half of the responding departments said that virtual laboratories were inappropriate, more than 40 percent thought virtual laboratories could serve a limited, supplementary role. In response to the survey, the CPT has proposed requiring programs to provide significant hands-on laboratory experiences prior to starting the foundational lab experience, explained McCoy.

Among the surveyed departments, there was near universal agreement that undergraduate research is a great experience for students. There was a strong consensus, McCoy iterated, that the guidelines should require an undergraduate research experience, but such a requirement would be difficult to implement, particularly by smaller programs. In thinking about what students would gain from this experience, the CPT concluded that it was not conducting research per se, but rather the opportunity to apply all of the skills and ideas they have gained as students to a personalized learning experience. In the end, the CPT proposed introducing a requirement for a “capstone experience.” Capstone experiences—which could include research, a group problem-solving class, an internship, or mentored teaching, among other possibilities—would provide students with opportunities to synthesize the knowledge and skills they gained across the curriculum.

Another common issue raised by survey respondents is concern about removing the requirement for two semesters of both organic and physical chemistry. The CPT has made this compromise to introduce flexibility into the curriculum. McCoy explained that about 4 percent of the programs have introduced a one-semester integrated organic chemistry course and 1 percent reduced the physical chemistry requirement to one semester for at least one degree track. Only 1 to 3 percent of programs are considering making similar changes.

The proposed changes would also alter the guidelines’ instrumentation requirements. Recognizing the importance and expense of gaining experience with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques, the revised guidelines would allow programs to use an offsite NMR facility to fulfill this requirement. The guidelines would also require student expo-

___________________

2 See http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/governance/committees/training.html.

3 See http://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/guidelines-white-paper.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

sure to at least one instrument in each grouping of optical atomic spectroscopy, optical molecular spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, electrochemistry, and chromatography/separations (McCoy and Darbeau 2013).

McCoy said that she sees the guidelines and the revision process as a community activity. She encouraged the workshop attendees to provide her and her colleagues Clark Landis and Joel Shulman, both presenters at the workshop, with comments, or to send comments to the ACS via e-mail at cpt@acs.org.

In response to a question about requiring a capstone experience rather than an actual research experience, McCoy said that the problem is not that faculty are not enthusiastic about providing a research experience, but that doing a good job for every student seeking a certified degree would be challenging. She noted one program where students work with industry chemists who pose challenges for the students to solve in teams. “That is almost as good, or maybe better, than doing more traditional undergraduate research projects,” she said. On the other hand, undergraduate research also provides important mentoring opportunities for graduate students and McCoy said that finding the right opportunities for each student will be key. “Requiring undergraduate research of all certified majors seems to be something the community is very concerned about,” she said.

One attendee asked McCoy if she was surprised at the strong negative response to online courses. She answered that the negative view could reflect the conservative nature of the chemistry community, or it may also reflect a misinterpretation of the survey question. McCoy explained that the survey question about online teaching did indicate the use of online instruction in combination with in-class teaching. She also added that she has seen some great opportunities for doing shared online instruction between multiple smaller institutions.

Responding to a question about how the courses offered at 2-year institutions fit into the guidelines, McCoy said that there is a separate set of guidelines for 2-year colleges that were adopted shortly after the 2008 guidelines (ACS 2008) were put into place. She also noted that there is a new 2-year college advisory board and the CPT has representation on that board. “It is an ongoing process but it is one I think we have made a lot of progress on in the last 3 or 4 years,” she said.

CHEMISTRY AND THE PRE-MEDICAL CURRICULUM: IMPACT OF MCAT2015

Joel Shulman of the University of Cincinnati and CPT member discussed potential impacts of MCAT changes on undergraduate chemistry. A report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians (AAMC/HHMI 2009), advocates a new focus for both pre-medical education and medical school curricula on core competencies rather than on specific courses or disciplines. On the basis of the report’s findings, AAMC is working to transform medical school admissions to keep pace with the changes in science and medical education with the ultimate goal of preparing a workforce that can better care for Americans’ health, said Shulman. As part of that transformation, students wishing to apply to medical school will begin taking a revamped MCAT starting in 2015.

The MCAT2015 will consist of four sections and generate four scores, one of which will be on the chemical and physical foundations of biological systems, while another will cover the biological and biochemical foundations of living systems. Questions in these sections will require students to have an understanding of the principles that govern chemical interactions and how these reactions form the basis for a broader understanding of the molecular dynamics of living systems (Schwartzstein et al. 2013). They will test introductory-level organic and inorganic concepts—biochemistry concepts at the level taught in most first-semester biochemistry classes—and target basic research methods and statistical concepts described by many baccalaureate faculty as being important to success in introductory science courses (AAMC 2011). Shulman explained that the approximate distribution of questions in the section on the chemistry and physical foundations of biological systems will be 30 percent general chemistry, 25 percent organic chemistry, 15 percent first-semester biochemistry, 25 percent introductory physics, and 5 percent biology. He noted that this is not much different than the subject matter distribution of the current MCAT test with perhaps a little more biochemistry.

The effect that the new MCAT will have on undergraduate chemistry courses that pre-med students are required to take is unclear. MCAT2015 will assess a set of eight scientific competencies (the combination of skills, abilities, and knowledge needed to perform a specific task) as designed by the AAMC (see Figure 2-1), explained Schulman. Two of these competencies (highlighted in Figure 2-1) are related directly to chemistry or biochemistry. For example, Competency E4 will require students to demonstrate knowledge of basic principles of chemistry and some applications of those principles to the understanding of living systems.

What is the best way that chemistry departments ensure that pre-med students master these core competencies? Shulman suggested three possible approaches: (1) “apply the concepts of chemistry to biological principles in biology courses”; (2) “apply a biological context to chemical principles in chemistry courses”; or (3) do both 1 and 2. In his opinion, it makes sense to do both. Shulman noted, however, that general and organic chemistry should be making as many connections to biology as possible regardless of whether these subjects are taught together or separately.

The new approach to testing medical school applicants raises the question of whether the chemistry curriculum

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

image

FIGURE 2-1 Competencies for entering medical students. SOURCE: Adapted from AAMS/HHMI (2009).

should change in response to MCAT2015. Currently, most pre-med students complete five semesters of chemistry—one year each of general and organic chemistry and one semester of biochemistry. Shulman said that he sees no reason that a school or program has to make a change in its curriculum for pre-med students. However, there are opportunities and challenges for the chemistry community that are laid out in Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians (AAMC/HHMI 2009), Schulman said. He argued that a major opportunity is for the chemistry community to recognize that most freshman and sophomore chemistry students, and not just pre-med students, have a strong interest in biology-related curricula. Schulman reiterated throughout his talk that the chemistry community should consider introducing more biological examples into both general and organic chemistry, regardless of MCAT2015.

It should be possible, Shulman continued, to take advantage of the flexibility in the ACS guidelines that McCoy described to reorganize chemistry curricula to emphasize the biological aspects of chemistry. He described several approaches that an ACS task force has identified for doing so. One approach would be to integrate biological examples into the traditional curriculum, and Shulman gave several examples of this. Enzymatic catalysis can be discussed when teaching about other catalytic processes, including the role of proximity within active sites and nonbonding interactions; peptide bonds and protein conformations as part of the study of carboxylic acids and amide bonds rather than as separate topics, usually at the end of the semester; and biologically relevant types of reactions, such as the Claisen condensation to form acetyl coenzyme A, or the formation of sulfates and phosphate bonds that are relevant to biological molecules.

Another approach to emphasize the biological aspects of chemistry is to create two different second-semester organic chemistry classes, one focused on bioorganic chemistry for pre-med and other biology-oriented students, and the other course emphasizing mechanism and synthesis for chemistry majors and chemical engineers. Shulman noted that Oberlin College has been using this construct successfully for 20 years, and though it requires the availability of teaching resources to offer two different second-semester organic chemistry courses, the ACS task force found that at least a few institutions are trying this approach.

Purdue University, with HHMI funding, has been developing what is being called the 1-2-1 approach, a 2-year curriculum for freshman and sophomore students. Each year consists of one semester of general chemistry, two semesters of organic chemistry, and one semester of biochemistry. In the 2-year curriculum, the general chemistry courses have a strong acid–base emphasis with connections to biochemistry. The organic chemistry courses emphasize reactions and mechanisms with biochemical analogies, while deemphasizing retrosynthesis and organometallic chemistry (Shulman 2013). The 1-2-1 approach assumes that students are adequately prepared before college so that one semester of freshman-level general chemistry is sufficient for success in the subsequent organic chemistry courses. Juniata College in Pennsylvania has used the 1-2-1 curriculum for years, with chemistry majors taking an additional year of organic chemistry as juniors.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

A fourth possibility is an “organic chemistry first” approach. Freshman start with what Shulman called a “biologically flavored” organic chemistry course that introduces some general chemistry concepts intercalated with relevant biology. The modified organic chemistry course is then followed by either two semesters of mainstream chemistry or one mainstream chemistry course and one biochemistry course. The most radical approach, said Shulman, would replace the standard first 2 years of chemistry with a one-semester course on structure and properties and a three-semester sequence on reactivity. The College of St. Benedict & St. John in Minnesota has developed this more extreme approach and is making a significant effort to link these courses to the MCAT2015 core competency requirements. Shulman added that this curriculum is allowed by the ACS guidelines but has not yet been reviewed by the CPT for approval. Schulman noted that the College of St. Benedict & St. John approach “takes a lot of work and it takes a lot of coordination.”

Commenting on the challenges of making curriculum changes to meet the demands of the new MCAT, Shulman said that smaller schools may have difficulty accommodating the chemistry requirements for all majors. He added that any type of curricular change takes buy-in from the faculty, coordination among departments, and the availability of appropriate texts. This last issue could be a particular problem, said Shulman. The CPT has discussed curriculum change with textbook publishers, but “they are not going to write textbooks until they know there is a large enough audience, and in many cases there will not be a large enough audience until there are textbooks,” he observed. Other challenges include coordination between 2-year and 4-year colleges to ensure that transfer students can transition smoothly into a new curriculum, and the potential impact on the need for teaching-assistant support at large schools, particularly if a curriculum moves from a two-semester to a one-semester general chemistry sequence.

Shulman pointed out that there are still many unanswered questions. He asked, “Will medical schools have the ability and desire to adjust their admission requirements to do away with course requirements and reflect competencies almost completely?” Other questions are whether undergraduate programs will be motivated to map courses onto pre-medical competencies, and whether the new MCAT will successfully assess competencies with credibility and reliability. Schulman highlighted a commentary by Charles Brenner and Dagmar Ringe (2012) that was published in ASMBM News that recommended going to a 1-year-of-chemistry and 1-year-of-biochemistry curriculum for pre-med students, with the 1-2-1 curriculum as an intermediate step toward this curriculum. Shulman rejected that idea, asserting, “I do not think you can possibly do students a service by going to that model.”

In closing, Schulman noted that there will be a series of commentaries in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Chemical Education, including one by Charles Brenner that will discuss the role of chemistry in the pre-med curriculum (Brenner 2013). He said that the bottom line is that the chemistry community needs to see how the MCAT is constructed and how it treats the intersection of content and skills in chemistry. “We need to figure out what our metrics ought to be so we know that any pedagogical changes made will be meeting the needs not only of the pre-medical students but all students.”

William Tolman, from the University of Minnesota, questioned Shulman’s statement concerning the biological interests of most first- and second-year chemistry students. At his institution, students have been “flocking away” from a biologically oriented class to the one that is less biologically oriented. Shulman responded that he had no statistical evidence, but that his conversations with organic chemistry faculty support this view.

David Harwell asked if it was also important to consider the competencies that the chemical industry needs, and not just those of medical schools, when thinking about redesigning curricula. “Should chemical educators be looking at more competencies as opposed to the courses we normally teach in preparation for graduate school?” he asked. Shulman supported this idea but noted that competency-based education is a challenge without good metrics to measure competencies accurately.

LESSONS LEARNED AT NSF

There are two homes for undergraduate chemistry education at NSF—the Division of Undergraduate Education in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, and the Chemistry Division of the Directorate for Mathematics and Physical Sciences—explained Susan Hixson, who noted that her comments do not necessarily represent official views of the NSF. She emphasized that there is “a boatload of existing results on successful undergrad chemistry education interventions, including content and pedagogy.” She noted, too, that active learning strategies have been perfected for the chemistry community and that there continues to be a significant research effort to better understand student learning in the context of undergraduate chemistry education research. Much of this research is published in the Journal of Chemical Education,4 highlighted in the Chemistry Education Division sessions at the semiannual ACS national meetings and also highlighted in the biannual Gordon Research Conference Programs on chemistry education and chemistry teaching. There have also been dozens if not hundreds of reports from policy groups, professional organizations, and other

___________________

4 See http://pubs.acs.org/journal/jceda8.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

interested parties on STEM education, and the ACS will be publishing a book that tracks many major research efforts.

In making some general observations, she noted that there are blurred conversations on education in terms of grade level, the type of undergraduate student, and the goals of transformation efforts. For example, it is important to know whether the discussion is about “generating chemistry majors who will go to graduate school,” “bachelor- or two-year college-level majors who are going to have industrial jobs,” or “producing K through 12 teachers,” she said. Hixson added that there are two factors that are unique to chemistry when it comes to discussing drivers of reform for teaching undergraduate chemistry: (1) first- and second-year classes are typically full because of the demands from majors other than chemistry or chemical engineering, and (2) the chemical profession actually worries when chemistry undergraduates are not finding jobs.

Developing and implementing reforms takes a great deal of effort sustained across a long, complex process, said Hixson. Introducing active learning techniques, for example, depends absolutely on having a committed, obsessive faculty member. “If there is going to be a major kind of change in how a course is taught, you have to assume it will take a decade or more for that reform to hit a national level,” she explained. In that regard, the chemistry community was fortunate to have the backing of NSF’s Chemistry Initiative 1994-1999 that not only introduced new ways of teaching undergraduate chemistry but also generated a huge cadre of faculty who were familiar with undergraduate education in chemistry and led to the development of a much larger chemistry education research field, she added.

One question that arises during any reform effort is why a project does not persist at a developer’s institution. One reason, she said, is that it did not work. Another is that the reform effort was led by a single faculty member who lost interest or left the institution. Changes in technology platforms and institutional changes, such as budget constraints or even the appointment of a new department chair or dean, can also cut short the life of a reform effort.

The failure of a successful effort to travel from one institution to another is because curriculum developers often forget to involve faculty from other institutions at the beginning of their projects. The result is a program that is idiosyncratic to the faculty at the home institution, Hixson explained. Developers also underestimate the sustained effort it takes to perfect and then disseminate a program. In addition to creating materials and pedagogy, and testing and revising them, a developer needs to assemble a group of colleagues who will speak at professional meetings and hold workshops for potential adapters, all of which requires funding, usually from sources outside of an institution. Cross-departmental projects are particularly challenging to develop and implement, Hixson explained, and require the sustained commitment at multiple institutional levels.

Hixson said funding agencies or foundations will often support educational reform efforts by funding scholarships or internships directly to students. While the motive is laudable, the benefits then travel with the student and often make little or no impact on the infrastructure at the host institution. In the same vein, programs that provide research opportunities for undergraduates have the same problem, and also are often limited to the “best and brightest” upper-level students and thus have little impact on expanding the pool of chemistry majors. There is also little information on whether research opportunities are effective at meeting their goals. In that regard, evaluating the effects of any reform effort is still challenging, Hixson noted. Too often, assessment is done too early in the life of a project or funding ends before evaluation is complete.

Hixson said that there were many missed opportunities in chemistry during her 20 years at NSF. One example, she said, is that while ACS has great national meetings, the Division of Chemistry Education has such a large program that its sessions almost always occur at a site separate from the rest of the ACS meeting. As a result, there is less cross-fertilization among faculty than might have been expected. In addition, most ACS journals do not accept education papers, again limiting cross-fertilization. New ACS presidents typically have some focus on education, but they could be better informed on the subject, she said. Although the CPT is known for its emphasis on chemistry content for chemistry majors, it has had little impact on the pedagogy for nonchemistry and nonscience majors. Another problem she pointed to was the fact that the ACS website only points to the society’s own work in the field, in contrast to the American Physical Society’s website, which points to major efforts throughout the field. The Gordon Research Conferences should be encouraged to include relevant education talks in their extensive offerings in chemistry. The Pittcon conference started doing this in the 1990s for analytical chemistry, she said in closing.

In response to a question from Matthew Tarr about incentives for faculty to participate in curriculum reform efforts, Hixson noted that this is the number one excuse she hears. She responded that while it is absolutely true that tenure decisions are based largely on research productivity, the tenure period typically lasts a mere 6 years, leaving decades for a faculty member to work on education issues. Hixson added, however, that she does not believe that the field suffers from a lack of successful interventions, but rather from not implementing the many effective ones that already exist.

DISCUSSION

The first issue raised during the open discussion period focused on how to link information learned in classrooms to real-world matters. James Anderson of Harvard University noted that students come to Harvard as masters of the standardized test and that it is a challenge to get them to start

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

to think about systemic, integrated issues that include the human body but also include global energy concerns, climate change, and others. In that regard, Anderson cautioned against going too far toward accommodating changes in the chemistry curricula to meet the needs of the MCAT. Shulman agreed and said that a general failure of chemistry curricula is that they do not demonstrate much connection to any of these broader issues. Cardillo added that chemistry education should not overlook the nonscience major. He argued that chemistry curricula have an opportunity to educate the general public through the nonscience major by emphasizing the connections between chemistry and broad topics that grab the attention of this larger audience, the citizens of the nation. For science majors, Hixson said that while the goal should not be to turn every student into a chemistry major, the field needs to do a better job informing students about the career options available for people with STEM degrees.

Thomas Holme, from Iowa State University and director of ACS Exams Institute, pointed out that the 2013 freshman class will be the first cohort that has been subjected to nonstop standardized testing since fourth grade as a result of the No Child Left Behind law. He asked whether this is a concern. Killewald said that her understanding is that No Child Left Behind has improved math performance and that she would not anticipate a negative effect on the preparation of entering students.

Robert Peoples, of the Carpet America Recovery Effort, focused on the content of chemistry coursework in light of scientific advances. He noted that chemistry faculty members have been teaching the same chemistry content using the same techniques for the last 100 years despite significant advances in chemistry. Peoples believes that it is important to think carefully about curriculum content and teaching contexts, and so cautioned against cramming more information into the same courses. McCoy replied that CPT has been considering issues about content and context. CPT believes that it is important to design the ACS guidelines to be less prescriptive about content, and instead place greater emphasis on teaching methods that help students build an understanding of how chemistry works and the language of different areas of chemistry. McCoy emphasized that it is important for chemistry students to be able to think more about broader topics and communicate across fields. “At the end of the day, less may be more,” said McCoy.

Jody Wesemann, from the ACS Education Division, asked whether infrastructure development might be needed to better prepare students to meet an uncertain future. McCoy answered that chemistry departments need to develop a physical plant that has the flexibility to allow for all of the different types of teaching modalities and teaching styles, such as online access to material outside of the confines of a lecture hall. She also stated that teaching laboratories need to be more flexible to accommodate cross-disciplinary learning. Garcia-Garibay added that chemistry community is at a crossroad—it can either circle the wagons around its traditional boundaries or the community can expand to take ownership of newer fields that involve chemistry, including biochemistry and materials science. Trevor Sears from Stony Brook University commented that it is important to work with university administration to explain that the paradigm for teaching science is changing and that classroom and laboratory space needs must reflect that change.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"2 Drivers and Metrics." National Research Council. 2014. Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18555.
×
Page 14
Next: 3 Innovations and Barriers »
Undergraduate Chemistry Education: A Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $39.00 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Undergraduate Chemistry Education is the summary of a workshop convened in May 2013 by the Chemical Science Roundtable of the National Research Council to explore the current state of undergraduate chemistry education. Research and innovation in undergraduate chemistry education has been done for many years, and one goal of this workshop was to assist in the transfer of lessons learned from the education research community to faculty members whose expertise lies in the field of chemistry rather than in education. Through formal presentations and panel discussions, participants from academia, industry, and funding organizations explored drivers of change in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education; innovations in chemistry education; and challenges and opportunities in chemistry education reform. Undergraduate Chemistry Education discusses large-scale innovations that are transferable, widely applicable, and/or proven successful, with specific consideration of drivers and metrics of change, barriers to implementation of changes, and examples of innovation in the classroom.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!