Chemical Education Journal (CEJ), Vol. 4, No. 1 /Registration
No. 4-14/Received February 21, 2000.
URL = http://www.juen.ac.jp/scien/cssj/cejrnlE.html
E-Mail: jhill@AWCNET.AW.LATROBE.EDU.AU
Abstract : The Chemistry 1 course in Australian Universities is considered a crucial foundation course for providing all tertiary science students with essential knowledge of chemical principles, but it also has to provide the stimulus for Year 1 tertiary students to continue with studies in chemistry, so that the future of postgraduate research programs in chemistry are assured. At present time in Australia the enrolment rates and retention rates in tertiary chemistry courses are of deep concern and, as a consequence, the chemistry 1 course in some Australian Universities is in a state of dynamic reform. There is, however, no agreement as to how halt the slide in enrolments in tertiary physical science courses, and Chemistry in particular, in Australia. Reforms are desperately needed to counter a potentially disastrous short-fall in well qualified tertiary educated chemistry graduates.
The research reported in this article indicates that while the need for reform is acknowledged it should not be at the expense of course standards, and that a significant proportion of experimental work in Chemistry 1 must be retained, to emphasise that chemistry is an 'experimental science'.
In an attempt to make the Chemistry 1 course more 'student - friendly', there is a progressive use of new teaching methodologies and new technologies. With respect to the latter, the Internet is being used for open access to basic factual material and for tutorial management. Interactive computer programs are also being used for the presentation of 'pre-laboratory tutorials' and for coursework (short) tests. However, there is also general agreement that these new teaching aids have to be applied with caution, since most students still prefer a significant proportion of 'face - to - face teaching, particularly in science courses. The vast majority of innovations currently underway in Australian University chemistry departments can be described as mechanistic - leaving the underlying curriculum untouched and introducing what can be considered as 'inducements of interest' to make the courses more palatable to students. The consideration of the potential effects these 'inducements of interest' is outside the scope of this article.
Australia is facing a major crisis with respect to chemical education on the eve of the 21st century. That is how to ensure that the country has sufficient graduates to fill the new opportunities that the chemical industry provides, e.g. in fields as diverse as 'green chemistry', biochemical research, and new materials chemistry. These issues are not unique to Australia but are being keening felt within the University system here as funding for future students depends not on national needs but rather on present enrolments. In the case of chemistry the number of students electing to study 'science' at the tertiary level has steadily declined over the last decade and the proportion of science students electing to study chemistry as a major has decreased dramatically over the same period. This trend translates into an acute shortage of 'chemists' - both as professional scientists and teachers over the next decade. The reasons for the decline in enrolments are complex, it has to do with such diverse factors as:
Australia is aware that with other developed nations it needs to maintain and sustain a technology emphasis in order to remain economically competitive, similar concerns were expressed throughout the 1990s, e.g. in the U.S. by the American Association for the Advancement of Science: Science and Technology and the Changing World Order (Sauer, 1990). Such an emphasis is 'nourished' by having a scientifically literate society and this in turn depends on educating students at the tertiary level to scientific competency. Chemical education plays an integral and central role in this continuing strategy.
In some Australian Universities, strategies are being explored to present factual chemical material in a more attractive and interesting way and in ways in which students are more able to grasp the essential facts. Since a major proportion of Chemistry 1 students have some difficulty with the basic principles of mathematics, novel ways of presenting Physical Chemistry are being sought. There is much debate as to the need for and the composition of a 'core of chemical knowledge' inherent in a viable Chemistry 1 course and whether or not, a 'set of experimental skills' is an essential post - requisite of the course.
The key philosophical concerns with respect to the Chemistry 1 course are also being considered. Australian Universities are making deliberate attempts to attract school - leavers into chemistry and then retaining them into subsequent chemistry courses. If these strategies are not successful in the short term, chemistry in Australia has a bleak future and the technological literacy level of the nation will be threatened.
The authors' note that these changes are largely cosmetic and fail to take into account the latest developments in the wider science education literature. From informal discussions during the research programme (carried out by JH) it appears that there are significant structural reasons why this is the case, these include:
In order to determine the present situation with respect to the Chemistry 1 course in Australian Universities and the reforms thereof which have taken place in recent years, an intensive 'interview program' was conducted during April/May 1999. One of us (JH) who has made a contribution to chemical research in Australia and is well known in the field carried out interviews with 21 of the 32 centres of chemistry (defined as those departments who offer Year 1 Chemistry courses) in tertiary institutions. The interviews followed a qualitative semi-structured methodology as described by Patton (Patton, 1990). The interviews were of about 1hour length with the Head of Department and or the Year 1 coordinator. Sixteen strategic questions, which collectively were designed to give a snapshot of the concerns of the staff about their Chemistry 1 course, were discussed. At the same time previous and continuing reforms taking place and ideas for the further development of this 'key' Year 1 Science course were addressed. The discourses were then analysed by making significant matchings of responses to the questions posed. The analysis is in the preliminary stages of development but significant trends are already apparent.
The following concerns were identified by a majority of the interviewees, they represent the most comprehensive recent review of the state of chemistry 1 courses in Australian Universities. They are not listed in an order of perceived importance:
Group 1 Concerns: Demographics
Most of the Chemistry Centres surveyed offer within the Chemistry 1 programme, a 'mainstream' course and an 'introductory' course, together with one or more specifically orientated 'service' courses. The traditional (older) Chemistry Departments tend to prefer to limit the number of service Chemistry 1 courses and some have opted for only one Chemistry 1 course for all Year 1 Science students. Those who opted for the latter approach argue that as the number and diversity of Chemistry 1 courses increases, academic workloads correspondingly increase. The result on the image of 'Chemistry' in a Faculty of Science decreases on the basis that it appears that 'chemistry' is prepared to go to any lengths to preserve its integrity as viable Department within the Faculty. Since staff compliments in most Chemistry Departments in Australian Universities have decreased progressively over the last decade, the number and diversity of Chemistry 1 courses has proportionately decreased over the same time frame.
The demographic impact of other science courses on the intake into Chemistry 1 courses has in general been very significant and therefore, of great concern. All Chemistry Departments visited are attempting to address this 'political' problem within the corresponding Faculty of Science. Most are exerting pressure on other science departments - particularly Life Science Departments, that 'chemistry' is an essential 'core' component of all the sciences and further, that chemistry courses at the tertiary level should be delivered by 'chemists' and not, for example, by 'biologists'. There is some pressure in some Faculties of Science for Life Sciences to teach chemistry courses from within their own ranks and this is having a positive impact on student numbers in Chemistry 1 courses with consequential impacts on allocations of funding to deliver Chemistry 1 courses. Most Chemistry Departments visited have been successful in mounting appropriate 'service' Chemistry 1 courses to meet the needs of other science departments within the Faculty and so the demographic scenario is under some control at present.
Within Chemistry Departments, there is widespread concern about the plethora of science degrees available in Australian Universities. It is believed that in a regime of an essentially constant student compliment, chemistry is disadvantaged by the widening course choice available to science students at the tertiary level. Thus, there is a tendency for 'chemistry' to diversify and to offer specialist degrees with a core chemistry content. Examples are 'Environmental Chemistry', 'Medicinal Chemistry' and 'Forensic Chemistry'. Many believe that there are questions of 'ethics' and 'standards' associated with 'specialist' degrees and that there is an overall 'dilution effect' in terms of the 'hard basic science' contained therein. However, the trend to increasing numbers of specialist science degrees is unlikely to change in the near future and so Chemistry Departments must adapt to this trend for their collective survival. Arts/Science and Science/Science double degrees are more palatable versions of the specialist degree syndrome.
Group 2 Concerns: Funding/Staffing
The major concerns for the Departments of Chemistry visited relate to a progressive decrease in academic staff numbers, compounded by a decrease in technical support staff and a progressive decrease, not only in total student numbers in Chemistry 1, but also a more alarming decrease in Year 1 students electing to study 'chemistry' as a major. These concerns condense to a decreasing operating budget for Chemistry Departments. Decreasing operating budgets percolate down to Chemistry 1 in two major ways. Firstly, laboratory sessions are being reduced - the 'norm' appears to be 7 experiments per semester. The 'spare weeks' are being used in a variety of ways, all of which are staff intensive. Secondly, the options offered by 'electronic teaching' are being investigated, but the logistics of such a methodology are expensive, both in terms of computer hardware and in terms of staff input. Also, 'multiple choice' examinations at the Chemistry 1 level are increasingly becoming the assessment method of choice in order to reduce staff time in the marking thereof.
The concerns apparent in each Chemistry Department visited are being addressed on a compromise basis. It is widely recognised that the Chemistry 1 course remains optimised in terms of effectiveness but it is generally agreed that the 'ideal' Chemistry 1 course is yet to be achieved due to a plethora of restraints, not only the present and long term financial restraints. Hence, each centre of chemistry is attempting to provide a quality Chemistry 1 program consistent with the limited resources available.
Group 3 Concerns: Pedagogies
Most Chemistry Departments visited use 'traditional teaching strategies' for delivery of Chemistry 1 programs. This correspond to 3 lectures per week, 1 structured tutorial per week and a 3 - hour laboratory session for at least 7 weeks in one semester. There is general agreement that laboratory sessions are essential and must be maximised, despite the cost thereof in terms of academic and technical staff resources. A variety of methodologies is being used for the delivery of tutorials and there is evidence of an increasing us of electronic teaching methods for this purpose. There is increasing emphasis on 'Pre-Laboratory Tutorials' and the introduction of structured problem solving sessions in the 'spare weeks' of the laboratory schedule. There is widespread support for 'Power Point' delivery of lectures to enhance the image and attractiveness of these. There is much support for a 'mix' of teaching methodologies for the Chemistry 1 course.
Since it is widely believed that lecturing of Chemistry 1 is not an easy task, the 'best' most enthusiastic (young) lecturers should be involved in the delivery of Chemistry 1. In most Chemistry Departments, changes in Chemistry 1 are enacted by democratic means via discussion with colleagues. The constant theme associated with the Chemistry 1 course is the intrinsic element of constant 'change'.
Chemistry Departments have expressed the desire to use more 'electronic teaching' in the delivery of the Chemistry 1 course. New teaching methodologies and new technologies such as the Internet, must be used with caution and a 'mix' of teaching strategies and technologies is probably the most realistic approach. Students already regard over-use of electronic teaching as ineffective and continuously express the need for a significant proportion of 'face-to-face' teaching and certainly this is essential in the Chemistry 1 course. Also, at the Year 1 level, students do not in general have the necessary discipline strategies to adapt to 'self-learning' methodologies and hence such delivery methods can be an unqualified failure. Further, in most Chemistry Departments, financial restraints limit the degree to which electronic learning techniques can be introduced.
Group 4 Concerns: Evaluation
Most Chemistry Departments visited have a formal 'evaluation' of the Chemistry 1 course by students. In some cases, only the course is assessed, in others, both the course and the lecturer are assessed. Most, if not all, chemistry teaching centres are proactive to student comments on the Chemistry 1 course, since these are the focus of future course development initiatives. Most Chemistry Departments are of the opinion that with constant and progressive 'fine-tuning', the most effective Chemistry 1 course will evolve in an environment of decreased resources. Although, in general, student reaction to the Chemistry 1 course has been consistently favourable, it is not at a sufficiently high level to promote an increase in Chemistry major numbers and this is of continuing concern.
Chemistry 1 Coordinators are highly pro-active towards student reactions and comments on the Chemistry 1 Course and these are a basis for continuing development of the course. Most centres place more emphasis on anecdotal student comment, rather than on written comments and believe that close interaction with students is an essential ingredient of overall effectiveness of the Chemistry 1 course. Most also believe that there is a difference between 'student enjoyment of the course' and 'student reaction to the course'. It is generally believed that in reality, few students 'enjoy' chemistry courses and that this is an 'hereditary' problem derived from previous exposure to chemistry in High Schools. The lack of interest in 'chemistry' at the High School level is predominantly due to chemistry in High Schools not being taught by teachers with a chemistry qualification but by teachers with a 'general science' qualification.
Group 5 Concerns: Conceptual Demands
There is a unilateral opinion within Chemistry Departments that any topic in chemistry which is associated with 'mathematical overtones' is believed to be 'conceptually difficult' by students. In particular, and as a consequence of this basic belief, most topics in Physical Chemistry are automatically labelled 'conceptually difficult' by students. Difficulty in chemistry appears to be inextricably linked to an inadequate ability in mathematics. Topics in chemistry which are descriptive in nature and can therefore be 'rote learned', are labelled 'straightforward' by students, even though some of the inherent concepts are known to be 'conceptually difficult'. This does not mean however that students 'enjoy' these topics.
Most Chemistry Departments agree that the Chemistry 1 course must contain 'a core of chemical knowledge' and 'a set of basic experimental skills'. It is expected that students will therefore possess these basic skills at the end of the Chemistry 1 course and therefore will have reached a level of 'chemical articulation'. However, there is much debate on the content of the knowledge core and of the basic experimental skills. It is conceded that such a core content has developed 'historically' and is therefore fundamentally entrenched in traditional Chemistry 1 courses. The question therefore arises as to whether the 'traditional Chemistry 1 course' is still viable and still appropriate at the start of the 21st century. It is generally agreed that the major objective of the Chemistry 1 course is to teach the students to 'think and talk chemically'. This is not easy since the language of chemistry is very different and considerably more articulate and definitive than 'everyday' language. Effectively, students have to learn this language in the same way as learning a 'foreign' language. This presents an additional learning element associated with the Chemistry 1 course.
There is widespread agreement that the quality of entering students into Universities is diminishing nationally and that with respect to science students, mathematics inarticulation is a serious problem. Many Chemistry 1 courses have therefore been 'softened' as a result. The ability of students to recognise and appreciate that 'science' is 'measurement' has also subsided. Thus, many Chemistry 1 courses now commence with questions such as 'What is Science ?' and 'What is Chemistry ?' Consistent with these general trends, it is generally agreed that 'it is better to understand a little than to attempt to superficially learn much'. Thus, Chemistry 1 courses in Australian Universities have in general decreased in net content, both in breadth and depth.
Group 6 Concerns: Entering cohort ability
It is generally believed that 'Pre-requisite Chemistry' is rapidly becoming an outdated requirement for entry into tertiary chemistry courses. Most Chemistry Departments are obviously eager to capture students with a school certificate pass in Chemistry but such students are declining in number annually. Hence, it appears that there will always be a need for a dynamic 'Basic' or 'Introductory' Chemistry 1 course, designed specifically for those students who have no previous experience of chemistry. Such courses require special teaching techniques if these are to be effective and successful.
There is widespread criticism of the High School system in Australia in terms of the type and qualifications of teachers who deliver Years 11 and 12 Chemistry. It is believed that the core of the 'Chemistry 1 problem' is due to the fact that senior school chemistry is not being taught by teachers with a specialist knowledge of chemistry but by 'general science' teachers. These teachers have no special enthusiasm for chemistry and this image immediately percolates down to the students, who, in turn, elect not to study chemistry further at University. Thus, it is believed that Year 12 Chemistry is a necessary and sufficient pre-requisite for Chemistry 1but it is very poorly delivered in the senior school arena and thus in the Chemistry 1 course, it is necessary to revise and re-enthuse students in the science of chemistry.
There is much debate in the tertiary sector as to whether a formal education qualification is either desirable or necessary in the context of delivery of a Chemistry 1 course. There is general agreement on the issue that 'lecturing' is different from 'teaching' and therefore 'educational scholarship' has a role to play in teaching academics how to be effective lecturers. There is widespread agreement that the delivery of the Chemistry 1 course is not an easy task.
Chemistry Departments generally agree that a variety of pressures are placed upon them to inflict 'change' on the Chemistry 1 course, consistent with 'national' and 'international' trends. Perhaps the most important of these is 'attraction rates' into Chemistry 1 and 'retention rates' into Chemistry 2. It is agreed that 'change' in Chemistry 1 does not manifest itself in 'big bang' terms but is, of necessity, gradual and decisive and Chemistry 1 courses are associated dynamic and progressive changes. The increasing number of science degrees available to students means that 'competitiveness' is a major factor influencing change in the Chemistry 1 course.
Group 7 Concerns: Professional support
It is widely believed that the professional chemistry organisations, such as the Royal Australian Chemical Institute should play a more effective and decisive role in the 'Chemistry 1 issue'. The RACI must address the inadequacy of teaching of chemistry in the senior school sector. It must by whatever means possible, make the general community more aware of the necessity of chemistry in everyday life and it must make Governments more aware of the need of chemical education in achieving a technologically - educated society. It should review the 'accreditation' process with respect to University courses and raise the accreditation standard so as to increase the professional profile of Chemistry. This strategy will ultimately attract quality students and 'professionalise' chemistry (major) degrees. Also, professional chemistry organisations should maximise interaction between the chemical industry and University Chemistry Departments - even at the Chemistry 1 level so that students can focus on a chemistry-based career. Further, the RACI must inform students and the general community of 'what chemists do'. Further pressure must be placed on Federal Governments to provide means for expansion of the chemical industry and assist this industry to diversify beyond the bulk chemical domain. This initiative will assist to reduce the national debt and stimulate employment prospects for graduating chemists. Perhaps of greatest importance, the RACI must enhance and promote the professional status of 'chemistry' both in Australia and overseas through the existing network of professional chemical societies.
The interviewees voiced their vision for reform by supporting the basic premise upon which chemistry courses in Australia have been founded for many years. Thus predictably their ideas for reform are not radical in any sense of the word - they tended to rely on tried and tested conceptions of what is chemistry education. A summary of their views is given below.
It appears intuitively obvious that the Chemistry 1 course should be of the 'core + options' format since a 'core of chemical knowledge' is essential as a platform for understanding the sciences. However, there is much (continuing) debate as to the components of the core and 'how' and 'in what order' these core topics should be presented. There is uniform agreement within the professional 'chemistry community' that the first component of the 'core' should be 'What is Chemistry ?' It is essential that chemistry be defined not only as 'the science concerned with the composition of matter' but that its status as the 'central science' be emphasised. The second core topic is 'The nature of matter'. The third core topic emphasises that 'chemistry' is a 'quantitative' science - 'The measurements and units of Chemistry'. The next core unit is 'Atomic Structure' , with emphasis on 'the electronic structure of atoms' as a prelude to 'The Periodic Table of the Elements'. The latter core unit leads in a streamlined way to 'periodic' and 'group' trends of the elements and their compounds. The next core unit is 'Simple Inorganic Compounds', which includes a simplified discussion of 'ionic' and 'covalent' bonding. This is followed by 'Chemical Formulas and Stoichiometry' and the core is completed by a discussion of the (3-dimensional) 'Structures of Ionic and Covalent Compounds'. Thus, it is widely believed that the 'core of essential knowledge' of Chemistry can be subdivided into just 8 sub-units which would constitute approximately 30% of a typical Chemistry 1 course. It should be noted that 'Organic Chemistry' and 'Physical Chemistry' units are not included in the 'core of knowledge' but may be included in the 'options' section of the course.
With respect to the future of the Chemistry 1 course, it is generally believed that a progressive development strategy will inevitably evolve. A 'big bang' revolution in Chemistry 1 has not occurred in the past and is therefore most unlikely to occur in the future. The Chemistry 1 course, is of necessity, associated with continuous change as a consequence of the changing array of internal and external pressures placed upon it. The survival of the Chemistry 1 program in Australian Universities will depend on the balance between 'content changes' and the 'pressures' driving those 'changes'. It is certain that the delivery of the Chemistry 1 course will progressively involve a greater proportion of 'learning' techniques and a lesser proportion of 'teaching' techniques, such that a higher level of 'knowledge enrichment' is achieved. Chemistry is intrinsically a 'model concept' based science. Learning strategies need to be developed which firstly deliver 'realistic models' and secondly, which relate those models to observable reality. These strategies present new challenges for Chemistry 1 teachers.
It appears that most Chemistry Departments in Australian Universities are somewhat insular with respect to the international Chemical Education debate. Some are only aware of the outline of the debate gleaned from appropriate journals. Few chemistry academics in Australia are directly involved in chemical education research and a very few regularly attend international Chemical Education conferences. The general reason offered is simply a lack of resources coupled with a critical lack of time. Also, the general chemical education debate is generally given a low priority in terms of essential academic commitments. It is also believed that the 'Chemistry 1 problem' in Australia is somewhat unique and hence major participation in the general chemical education debate is of little significance. Conversely, there is a desperate need to appreciate the scope and debate on the Australian Chemistry 1 problem and the present research project is uniquely addressing this national need. Major effort is directed to building in the elements of 'relevance' and 'importance of chemistry in everyday life' within the superstructure of the Chemistry 1 course. However, once again, a measure of caution is necessary here, since an over-emphasis of these elements can result in a diminution of the quantitative aspects of chemistry. There is little doubt that if a truly viable Chemistry 1 course is to eventuate, its construction and evolution has to result from intensive interaction with the international Chemical Education debate.
It is generally agreed that the present trends with respect to declining student interest in chemistry and chemistry-based degrees is likely to continue over the next decade. This can perhaps best be addressed in Australia by decreasing the number of Centres of Chemistry in the University sector to match more realistically the student demand for chemistry courses. It appears that Chemistry Departments must continuously adapt and absorb the plethora of internal and external demands made on them and must continue to 'teach to the market' and 'adapt to the demands of that market' if these Departments are to survive as integral units. The 'Golden Era of Chemistry' in Australia is sadly long gone but Chemistry Departments across the nation are striving the proud and entrenched traditions of chemistry in Australia and the integrity and status of Chemistry within the Australian University sector. A concerted effort needs to be focussed on developing 'strategic alliances' between all chemistry arenas in Australia and to some extent with the global chemistry community. Such alliances have a profound effect on the community image of chemistry and provide mutual and synergistic support for the chemistry profession. There is little doubt that the 'science emphasis' in Australia is declining and this enigma needs to be addressed primarily at the political level. However, at the 'grass-roots' level, existing alliances between tertiary centres of chemistry, the chemical industry at large and the CSIRO must be strengthened and extended. Further strategies are urgently required to augment the inadequate levels of research and development funding at all levels of the profession. There is an urgent need to increase the number of postgraduate scholarships for higher degree studies in chemistry and to continuously stress in Government circles that 'education' in all its forms is the ultimate key to national progress in a technological age. Unless all of these initiatives are pursued with vigour, the future of chemistry in Australia is in jeopardy.
It is to be hoped that the concerns uncovered by this research will eventually result in dynamic educational reform of the Chemistry 1 courses around Australia. This will undoubtedly be a painful exercise for many in academe but it may be the only way of halting the slide in influence and prestige of the profession
Cross. R. T. & Price, R. F. 1992. Teaching Science for Social Responsibility. Sydney: St. Louis Press.
Fensham, P. J. 1997. 'Chemistry for Tomorrow's Public', Education in Chemistry, 34 (2), pp. 43-44.
Fensham, P. J. 1988. 'Some dilemmas and new directions in science education'. In P. Fensham (ed.) Development and Dilemmas in Science Education, London: The Falmer Press.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Sauer, S. L. (ed.). 1990. Science and Technology and the Changing World Order. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Shea, C. P. 1989. 'Protecting the Ozone Layer'. In L.R. Brown State of the World. New York: Norton, pp. 77-96.
Williams, R. 1993. 'Old Blokes in white Coats'. In K. Ackrill (ed.) The Role of the Media in Science communication. London: Ciba Foundation, pp. 189-197.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common future. Oxford Oxford University Press.
Top
Header
CEJ Vol. 4, No. 1, Contents