American Chemical Society

The evolving landscape of chemistry education

Richard W. SchwenzDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry

University of Northern ColoradoGreeley, CO 80639

BCCE Symposium on The Evolution of the ACS Approval Process: Moving beyond the 2008 Guidelines

July 31, 2012

Who is CPT?

American Chemical Society 2

Members• Anne B. McCoy (Chair), THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY• Ron C. Estler (Vice Chair), FORT LEWIS COLLEGE• Edgar A. Arriaga, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES• Ronald Brisbois, MACALESTER COLLEGE• Ron W. Darbeau, MCNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY• Joseph S. Francisco, PURDUE UNIVERSITY• Suzanne Harris, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING• Scott C. Hartsel, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE• Bob A. Howell, CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY• Laura L. Kosbar, IBM T.J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER• Clark R. Landis, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON• Cynthia K. Larive, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE• Lee Y. Park, WILLIAMS COLLEGE• Richard W. Schwenz, UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO• Thomas J. Wenzel, BATES COLLEGE

Secretary• Cathy A. Nelson (Committee Secretary), ACS

Consultants• John W. Kozarich, ACTIVX BIOSCIENCES • Joel I. Shulman, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI • George S. Wilson, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

What program factors are evaluated by CPT?

• Curriculum• Faculty• Facilities• Funding / Support• Instrumentation

American Chemical Society 3

Which areas are likely to change in undergraduate chemistry?

American Chemical Society 4

• Curriculum• Content• Pedagogy

• Faculty

• Facilities

• Funding / Support

• Instrumentation

What defines the curricular content?

American Chemical Society 5

• The content areas• ABIOP, and fundamental and in-depth

(advanced) courses• Interdisciplinary areas

• Chemical physics, materials chemistry, nanoscience, chemical biology, forensic science

• Laboratory• 400 hours spread between foundational

and in depth experiences, hands-on laboratory covering 4 of the 5 areas, and which can include undergraduate research

How might the pedagogy change?

• Our knowledge of student learning practices is increasing– Constructivism (students constructing their own learning in their minds, rather

than the blank slate model)– Active learning is now the prevalent model for an appropriate pedagogy (not

what I’m doing right now)

• Online delivery of classes– Cost efficiencies (?)– Pro’s and con’s– Transferability

American Chemical Society 6

Examining the pedagogy

• The place of laboratory and its focus– In a rigorous formal laboratory course sequence, students should

progressively develop effective and safe chemical laboratory skills that require use of the methods and instrumentation of modern chemistry,

start with simple stepwise manipulations performed according to a prescribed sequence, but progress to activities that require decision-making about appropriate experimental design and data interpretation/analysis required to answer specific chemical questions,

produce organized, concise, and coherent descriptions and analysis of their experimental work through written and oral reports to which faculty provide detailed feedback.

– Inquiry versus technique versus verification– Online / distance delivery of laboratory– Instrumentation / Computer / On-site vs. not

• The place of process versus content coverage

American Chemical Society 7

Changes in the student body

By 1940, there were 65 approved programs. Today there are 667! But also compare these student numbers to the number of bachelor’s chemists in China (30,000 per year)

American Chemical Society 8

What is then the value of the ACS certified degree? To whom?

The student body• Demographics

– More students (baby boom)2

– As of 2012, a majority of births are minorities– Immigrant population, LAUSD has 70 languages in 1 high school– Far more transfer students (especially from CC’s) because of $$$$

• Available technology (laptops, tablets, iPods, smart phones)– Phones as clickers– In – class searching

• Books– E – books, rental of books

• “MTV – style” information delivery– Flash, repeat, move-on, etc.

American Chemical Society 9

Changes in chemistry content

American Chemical Society 10

• The 2008 revision was done in part to allow greater innovation in the structure of the curriculum– Have you modified your curriculum since 2008?

• Inclusion of biochemistry in 1999 guidelines revision• Interdisciplinary focus of most research• Research is not the individual investigator model any longer

Faculty• What constitutes a faculty member?

– Tenure / tenure-track, full time non-tenure track, part-time, graduate TA’s, instructional responsibility (lecture, laboratory, combination, …)

• We don’t look at the demographics of the faculty in terms of age, but we do in terms of interests / areas of concentration / teaching loads

• Professional development (sabbaticals, attending meetings, workshops)

• Do we want all faculty members to look like this?• CPT survey results

American Chemical Society 11

Non-tenure-track faculty play a significant role in both classroom and laboratory teaching in all of these courses. In both the introductory and organic courses in which a chemistry major might enroll, non-tenure track faculty contribute most to laboratory teaching. In lecture, tenure-track faculty account for the majority of contact hours, but non-tenure-track faculty (particularly LT/FT faculty at PhD-granting institutions) account for a significant proportion of these contact hours. While overall, at all types of institutions, about 70% of students in the introductory course see tenure-track faculty in lecture, at public PhD-granting institutions nearly 40% of students in this course see LT/FT faculty and over 15% see temporary or part-time faculty. The overall percentage of students who see tenure-track faculty in lecture increases to over 80% in the introductory organic course, but about 25% of students in this course at PhD-granting institutions see LT/FT faculty.

Facilities• Size of the lecture

– Cost efficiency versus learning efficiency

• Size of the instructional laboratories– Safety is a concern– Laboratory class size versus space– Stockroom

• Instrumentation– At present, a functioning NMR is required– At least one instrument from a number of categories– Students must have hands-on access

• Library– Journal holdings / inter-library loan / on-line access

American Chemical Society 12

Financial issues

Funding issues for higher education – C&EN, July 2nd issue

State-supported institutionsDecreasing state support, resulting in increasing tuition, and increasing financial aid

Private institutionsIncreasing tuitionsNet result is more student debt on graduation

Greater number of part – time studentsGreater number of transfer / community college students

Questions for Discussions - 1• Faculty and staffing:

– How would you define “faculty” for the purposes of the guidelines? What characteristics distinguish these individuals from “instructional staff” or “lecturers”?

– Presently the guidelines state that the "maximum number of contact hours in classroom and in laboratory instruction for faculty and instructional staff must not exceed 15 total hours per week.  To accommodate occasional fluctuations in instructional responsibilities, up to two individuals may have as many as 17 contact hours in one semester or quarter, provided that the average for each individual during the academic year does not exceed 15 contact hours per week."  Are fifteen contact hours, and this extent of flexibility appropriate?

– If different numbers were used for maximum contact hours for faculty and for other individuals who deliver the curriculum, what would be appropriate contact hour limits for these two groups? Would these numbers be different if you consider the best interests of your program and when you consider practical limitations (e.g. College policies)? Should flexibility be retained?

– What is the minimum number and type of support staff you would need to run your department. If such staffing is not available, how are faculty compensated for the time required for them to perform the activities that could be done by support staff? How can CPT use the guidelines to encourage and monitor that departments have appropriate support staff?

American Chemical Society 14

Questions for Discussion - 1

• On-line courses– Where in the curriculum would on-line courses be appropriate?– How could laboratory experiences be incorporated in such courses?– Are there situations where the use of on-line courses should be encouraged?

• Virtual laboratory– How do you define a virtual laboratory?– Virtual laboratories can play a variety of roles. Would you see them as being

appropriate as supplements to traditional laboratories, as replacements of some of the traditional labs, or as replacement of all of the traditional labs in a course?

– Where in the curriculum would virtual laboratories be appropriate?

American Chemical Society 15

Questions for Discussion - 1

• Non-traditional course materials: – What types of courses no longer use traditional textbooks?– The committee uses textbooks as part of our assessment of the level of

courses. When courses are taught with other materials, what materials do you think would be most valuable to the committee in evaluating the level of the course?

• As CPT increased curricular flexibility in the 2008 Guidelines, there are opportunities for integrated laboratory or lecture courses that include content that involves two or more of the ABIOP sub-disciplines of chemistry. – What materials do you think would be most helpful to the Committee that would

help us understand the coverage of the ABIOP sub-disciplines in such courses?

– We could use a rubric to evaluate sub-disciplinary coverage – how would you envision this working?

American Chemical Society 16

• New uses of innovative technology– What innovative applications of technology have you seen or do you expect

will be available in the next few years that might influence delivery an undergraduate chemistry major?

– What of these changes should CPT try to address in the next revision of the Guidelines?

American Chemical Society 17