What could the three items in the title possibly have in common? For me, they represent three of the 24 different projects my students turned in February 14. In the July 2007 issue of the Journal of Chemical Education, Ami LeFevre shared her Element Project, Bouquets of Periodicity, within a longer report about the ACS High School Day Program.

In that month’s “Especially for High School Teachers” column, I wrote about how I looked forward to trying it in my classroom. This project was one of the captivating moments that carried me through the school year. I am so glad that I incorporated it into my curriculum. The students, faculty, parents, and visitors to our school were really impressed as well. These projects adorn various desks around the school and are even rotated at the school secretary’s desk in the main lobby—at present the lanthanide series in the fish bowl occupies that place of honor. Visitors to the school comment about the creative talents of our students and find the information on the projects “quite amazing”. These projects have also been good conversation starters on Grandparent’s Day and with the parents of prospective students.

For this project, students worked in assigned groups of three, with various levels of ability and creativity. I used Ami’s broad description and most of her assignment directions. I let the students choose their element group—all 18 groups were available and chosen, some twice, including the lanthanide and actinide series. Once the projects were completed and turned in, the students evaluated each team member individually, including themselves, and only shared their evaluations with me. I always incorporate individual evaluations into group projects and my students have commented that they find this quite helpful. It allows each student to openly and honestly share thoughts and opinions about themselves and the other group members in a non-threatening manner. The evaluation is also incorporated into each individual’s project grade.

Each of us needs new and fresh ideas; this was the special one for me this year. My students for next year are already talking about this project—one student has requested Group 14! When asked what she had planned for the final project, she just smiled and said, “It’s a surprise!!!” That kind of a statement is music to a teacher’s heart. It makes me want to assign this project the first day of class, just to see what she does with it.

There are additional photos, project directions, a grading rubric, and a student evaluation form online in the supplemental material. Those of you attending this summer’s Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE) at Indiana University will get to see many of these. This project will also be part of a talk in the Survivor Skills for 1st to 5th Year Chemistry Teachers symposium at the BCCE.

The July 2008 issue of JCE contains information about the much-anticipated CD-ROM containing the first 50 JCE Classroom Activities. Classroom Activities are awesome, and every teacher I meet is so grateful for the thoughtful and thorough manner in which Erica Jacobsen oversees their publication. People have often asked why there are not even more of them. I know that many of you do some really great things in your classrooms: if you shared them, others would benefit greatly. Please consider it—Erica and I are more than willing to help you put together your first Activity or Classroom Activity Connection, such as the Connection in July’s issue. Just email us and ask Erica or me.

JCE High School Chemed Learning Information Center (CLIC)

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Yancey, 1816

Thinking is hard. Writing is hard because it requires thinking. Both thinking and writing involve time and concentration-commodities that these days are hard to come by. Sometimes it seems that nobody has time for, or even cares about, thinking-or for that matter concentrating on any single task. According to Steve Jobs, eBooks will fail because “people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year” (1). Presumably these people are busy viewing videos on their iPhones, listening to music on their iPods, driving their SUVs, or all three at once.

Next month is our summer reading issue, with reviews of more than a dozen books that would be valuable to read in your leisure time. But before you start on those books, I recommend Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason (2). Though not explicitly about chemistry or science, it has a lot to say about science, teaching, and public understanding.

Jacoby’s condemnation of “unreason” is much broader, but she specifically documents ignorance about science. America is the only developed country in which evolution by natural selection is not viewed as accepted, noncontroversial science. Jacoby refuses to accept religious fundamentalism as the sole reason, citing many non-fundamentalist dismissals of scientific consensus. She argues that ignorance of evolution, and worse, of science and its principles and modes of thought, are the main problem. In support she quotes NSF studies revealing that more than two thirds of Americans do not know that DNA is the key to heredity, 90% do not understand radiation, and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. She also cites poor performance on examinations that compare U.S. students with those from other countries. A recent poll by the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry does nothing to contradict Jacoby-nearly half of Americans could not name any scientist as a role model for today’s youth (3).

Jacoby attributes lack of knowledge of science to “a stunning failure of American public schooling at the elementary and secondary levels”, but I think there is more to it than that. To a considerable degree intellectuals in general and scientists in particular have gotten too busy with their own pursuits to pay attention to maintaining the infrastructure undergirds science and its contributions to society. We scientists have not been as aggressive as we should, for example, in recruiting top students to careers in teaching at the K-12 level and providing such students with the scientific background they need to excite their students about science. Until both scientists and the general public begin to afford K-12 teaching the respect and importance that it deserves, we are likely to continue to spiral downward in quality rather than soar to new heights.

Can we do anything about this? In her final chapter, Jacoby suggests that the U.S. may have arrived at a teachable moment as a result of many failures of government policies that have ignored facts and scientific consensus. Jacoby argues that solutions to our problems will not be technological but rather must come from changing the way we think-and how much time we spend thinking. Jacoby wants politicians to provide leadership and tell us that we “have become too lazy to learn what we need to know to make sound public decisions”. This is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for politicians to do unless those of us in the trenches of the educational system help our students to learn how to think as scientists think, how to apply rational thought to everyday situations, and why doing this is crucial to a free society. In the words of Daniel Webster’s eulogy for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1826, our country was founded on the basis of “a newly awakened, and an unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge throughout the community”. That is, the founders based a country on the spirit of science. We need to maintain that spirit when we teach science.

I encourage you to read Jim Roach’s Commentary (which also appears in this blog). Its title begins “Als Ik Kan”, Flemish words for “to the best of my ability”. Roach has resolved, and encourages all of us to resolve, to teach to the best of our ability and to motivate our students to learn and work to the best of their abilities. I encourage all who read this to serve as models of rational, scientific thinking and create learning environments in which our students are encouraged-even required-to apply rational thought to both science and their daily lives. Set aside some time to think quietly and carefully about this.

Literature Cited

1. Jobs, Steven P., quoted in the New York Times, January 21, 2008.

2. Jacoby, Susan The Age of American Unreason Pantheon Books: New York 2008.

3. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago The State of Science in America, March 20, 2008; http://www.stateofscience.org/ (accessed April 2008).

Science versus Antiscience?

Colleges and universities have become little more than student-factories; turning out products that are inferior or worse yet, obsolete when they walk off the commencement stage. As a physical chemist I can appreciate the importance of technology in both teaching and research. But, proficiency with technology does not guarantee good teaching. Perhaps we should all use a little more chalk and a little less tech; spend more time training students to think and less time telling them where to click. I have a New Year’s resolution; a new strategy that I plan to unveil at the start of the spring semester (and at the beginning of every semester thereafter). I’m hoping that dedication and passion are contagious! My standards are going up; my time spent with students is going to increase. Students will have excellence demanded of them and excellence demonstrated to them…Als Ik Kan…to the best of my ability.

“Coulda, woulda, shoulda” is a loop that often plays in my brain after a conference presentation. Why didn’t I… I could have… I should have… Even after extensive preparation, it’s easy to dwell on what you could have done differently so the presentation would have been even better. Maybe you ran out of handouts. Maybe the proper cords to connect your laptop to the LCD projector weren’t available. Maybe later you found a better way to explain a topic. Second-guessing oneself can be a popular pastime, whether for a presentation, classroom lesson, or any area of life.

In the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Chemical Education, Jim D. Roach’s commentary “Als Ik Kan…My New Year’s Resolution” offered me a salve for the “coulda, woulda, shoulda’s”. He describes a speech he makes to new students and their parents on behalf of the faculty of Emporia State University. Central to his speech is the Flemish phrase “Als Ik Kan”, which is part of the company logo placed on pieces of furniture created by Gustav Stickley, interpreted “to the best of my ability”. Based on this phrase, a more effective use of my post-presentation time might be to ask myself “Did I do it to the best of my ability, within the circumstances?” I plan for my answer to be “Yes.” Sure, things can always be improved the next time around, but this time was the best I could do.

Als Ik Kan logo, courtesy of the Stickley Museum at Craftsman Farms.

I wasn’t aware of Stickley’s use of the phrase until now, but widespread application of it is appealing. Roach encourages students as well as educators to live by this phrase in their academic lives. He concludes his commentary saying: “Students will have excellence demanded of them and excellence demonstrated to them…Als Ik Kan”. The commentary will be blogged at this site; please take a look and add your own comments.

For one example of excellence, don’t miss Cardellini’s interview with Peter Atkins in the June 2008 issue of JCE. Atkins’s dedication to the communication of science is impressive. When asked how he finds time to write so many books, he ascribes it to “…an obsession to communicate and share the insights that science alone provides” and “Another factor is the need to work hard. It is no use lying back and expecting the book to write itself.” I have two of his many books on my shelves at home. Flipping through them is a visual treat, to say nothing of the wealth of engaging scientific information they contain. The interview provides an interesting window into Atkins and his life.

The two articles in the June 2008 Chemical Education Research feature by Cooper et al. and Cracolice, Deming, and Ehlert also gave me a feel of “Als Ik Kan” applied to the classroom. The research presented by both sets of authors really speaks to their desire to determine ways students can learn chemistry even more effectively. Cracolice, Deming, and Ehlert compared algorithmic and conceptual problem-solving ability, and discuss its implications for instructors on how to facilitate the development of students’ reasoning skills. Cooper et al. had intriguing results about how working collaboratively in a group can have a positive effect on problem solving. These educators are striving to do the best they can, to help students and other educators do the best they can.

In the end, no matter the task, we should be able to say, perhaps in Latin rather than Flemish, from a novel by one of my favorite authors (1): “Quantum in me fuit”—I did the best I could.

Laura’s take on the Issue
from Laura Slocum, JCE High School Associate Editor

Students ask questions about the names of many of the pieces of equipment that they use the laboratory. Some are easy—Erlenmeyer flask or Büchner funnel, because they are named to honor a person. However other names are harder to explain and rubber policeman is the most challenging of all for me. I have often researched this, but it was not until I read Jensen’s article that I fully understood the use of the word “policeman” in this name. My students still find this a challenging name, but say “That makes sense now.”

Fisher and Levinger discuss several approaches for integrating the ethical dilemmas we face in our classrooms. Though students say they know what cheating and plagiarism are when asked, they often say, “I did not know that was plagiarism” when they cross the line in the classroom. This past year, I put specific examples in my course policy sheet and still had several incidents, especially in lab reports. The learning approaches suggested by Fisher and Levinger should provide even more clarity for students. I have already added a couple of them to the introductory materials for my classes next fall.

Each summer brings opportunities for rest, rejuvenation, and opportunities for us to learn new things to bring back to our classrooms next fall. I hope that each of you will take advantage of the opportunities available to you and I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the 20th BCCE in Bloomington, IN, this summer.

Literature Cited

1. Francis, Dick. Hot Money, First American edition; G. P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, 1988; p 29.

JCE High School Chemed Learning Information Center (CLIC)

I think there are likely to be unintended negative (as well as many positive) consequences during the transition of journals (such as this one) from the era of print publication to the new paradigm of online-only publication. A recent report from the Association of Research Libraries presages this inevitable change (1). An important and accelerating shift is occurring in major research libraries from print to online holdings, as shown in the pie charts (2). Publishers, librarians, and users of academic journals all want the convenience of online access to journal articles, many expect economies to result when it is no longer necessary to print and mail large numbers of journal issues, and some argue that because it is easy to transmit information via the internet, the contents of journals should be freely available for everyone. It is important to consider what this inevitable shift will mean for the readers, authors, reviewers, and editorial staff of the JCE.

This Journal, like most others, is under considerable pressure to make all of its content freely available on the Internet. This is referred to as “open access”. Before its recess at the end of 2007, the U.S. Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill. President Bush signed it into law on December 26. The bill includes a requirement that NIH-funded researchers submit electronic copies of their manuscripts to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication. The manuscripts are to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after publication. To implement this mandate, the NIH is requiring its grantees and their institutions to submit the final peer-reviewed manuscript, including all graphics and supplemental materials, for any paper accepted on or after April 7, 2008. Also, “Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this Policy” (3). Clearly this Journal and many others will have to revise their copyright transfer agreements, even if there are only one or two NIH-supported manuscripts per year (as is the case for the JCE). This will require a change in our recently adopted policy of making articles published in 2008 and subsequently freely available after a two-year period (4).

Proponents of open access say that because the research was publicly funded, it should be made available free to everyone. This ignores the considerable value added through the peer review and publication process, which is not being paid for by the government. If submissions are not evaluated, culled, clarified, and edited, then they likely will be self-published at a much lower level of quality Open access also ignores the differences among journals. Some publish only the latest, cutting-edge research. Papers in such journals must be read immediately by active researchers in the field. Their value decreases rapidly with a half-life on the order of weeks or months. Other journals, such as this one, publish materials that continue to be useful and valuable decades after their publication. Someone planning to revitalize a laboratory program a ten years from now will find that laboratory experiments published in this issue, in issues from decades ago, and from issues yet to come are all valuable. In addition there is considerable value added by Project Chemlab, whose members vet each experiment, assign keywords from a special, laboratory-oriented vocabulary, and have annotated every laboratory experiment published in the JCE since the 1960s. All of this effort is organized by dedicated members of our editorial staff whose salaries are paid by the subscription fees you, your colleagues, and institutional subscribers pay.

Broadening access to published research and to other published materials is a great idea. It is for exactly that reason that individual subscriptions to the JCE are priced at only $45 per year (and have been for over a decade-so their value increases annually). It is also the reason that we have set up a tiered structure for institutional subscriptions: smaller institutions with fewer users and less financial resources pay less. And it is why we have kept subscription prices low-lower than almost any other journal on a per-page basis. Debasing the value of a resource such as the JCE by making access entirely free is a bad idea. What you and your institution pay as subscribers is what makes possible all the things our editorial staff and our many volunteers (reviewers, column editors, demonstration testers, Chemlab annotators, and others) do to maintain the high quality of the JCE, both in print and online. Let’s not forget what keeps that quality coming every month.

Literature Cited

1. Johnson, Richard K.; Luther, Judy The E-only Tipping Point for Journals: What’s Ahead in the Print-to Electronic Transition Zone Association of Research Libraries: Washington, CD, 2007 (see http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/Electronic_Transition.pdf, accessed March 2008).

2. Prabha, Chandra. Serials Review 2007, 33, 4-13.

3. See http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ (accessed March 2008).

4. JCE editorial staff, J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 36.

Open Access gains attention in scholar communic…

My young children are big fans of dot-to-dot puzzles. Each page doesn’t look like much to start—just a jumbled up mess of numbered dots. But if the dots are linked in the correct order, an appealing picture appears. Reading through the May 2008 issue of the Journal of Chemical Education felt a bit like traveling along the path of such a puzzle. Several articles contained topics or experiments that jogged my memory for a further connection, particularly to JCE Classroom Activities.

On page 658, Chamberlain and Rogers describe the pieces they connected in a four-week course for high school students about applications of biochemistry. For one of the laboratories, they adapted a calorimetry experiment from a published lab manual. Students burn a “Cheezy Poof”, determine the energy transferred to water, and compare that energy to the information on the food’s nutritional label. The authors weave this experiment into a larger discussion of fuel metabolism. Don’t have access to the referenced lab manual, or don’t have the time to adapt it yourself? Connect to JCE Classroom Activity #65, “Calories—Who’s Counting?“. Students perform what sounds like an extremely similar procedure, but compare the energy transferred by marshmallows and nuts.

Brunauer and Davis offer a gel filtration experiment that was successfully used in an advanced placement high school biology class. Students separate a mixture of three colored compounds. The experiment requires approximately four hours to perform and can be spread over several days. Need an easy way to introduce students to column chromatography before using the experiment, or don’t have time for the full experiment? Connect to JCE Classroom Activity #61, “Checkerboard Chromatography“. The Activity turns a column chromatography simulation into a dice-rolling game. Students observe how three colored compounds (pieces of red, blue, and yellow construction paper) separate and exit the column game board. They also investigate what happens when the flow rate and column length change.

Ware provides an excellent survey of the history, chemistry, and applications of Prussian blue. His background includes nearly 30 years’ experience in chemistry and extensive personal work with alternative photographic processes. They meld neatly in this article, which includes several of his cyanotype prints. Want to give students a chance to try cyanotype photographs of their own? Connect to JCE Classroom Activity #19, “Blueprint Photography by the Cyanotype Process”, described in the May 2008 Classroom Activity Extension.

Cyanotype photogram of algae by Anna Atkins, ca 1845. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

McKean makes her own connection in the May Classroom Activity Connections feature. She shares a piece of her extensive project that links children’s literature with simple science activities. She has 100 book selections connected to activities appropriate for elementary students. In this month’s article, she describes one book, Sun Up, Sun Down and its related activities. In turn, her activities for Sun Up, Sun Down connect with JCE Classroom Activity #36, “Putting UV-Sensitive Beads to the Test“.

Whew! How’s that for a roundabout dot-to-dot?

One last connection. This spring brings an exciting event: the publication of a new JCE Software CD-ROM with the first 50 JCE Classroom Activities and their supplements. The Activities are categorized by their date of publication, science content standards, keywords, and outreach use. It’s a bargain at $35 (U.S. orders) or $50 (non-U.S. orders), and is an easy and convenient way to access your favorite Activities.

Laura’s Take on the Issue
from Laura Slocum, JCE High School Associate Editor

The notes I took while reading the May 2008 issue generated a nice list of ideas to address some of the items that have floated up and down—but never off—my “to-do” list this school year. For example, I have always wanted to plan a field trip for my first year students. Peterman’s field trip outcomes at the end of each field trip description really encouraged me to bring that idea high up on my list. The outcomes helped me put together a strong field trip proposal for next year that I will share with my school administrators.

I teach at a one-on-one laptop school, so technology is always an issue. Each student has a laptop and the school is wireless, so access to electronic/online resources can occur anywhere in the school whenever the students are using their laptops. Our laptop program has caused me to wonder about giving up the whiteboard and going to PowerPoint during instruction time, but I just cannot do it. I allow students to provide compounds or numbers in problems we are working, and I also like the spontaneous writing that occurs on the whiteboard as students ask questions. However, Johnson helped me to more openly consider a transition to PowerPoint. Her inclusion of digital ink technology with PowerPoint really captivated me, and I have added this to my summer “to-do” list to try for next year.

JCE High School Chemed Learning Information Center (CLIC)

Everyone would like textbooks to be as inexpensive for our students as possible. Used books are a good way to save money (and resources), but when bookstores sell used books at greater profit than new ones, there is less remuneration for the authors and publishers who do the major work of creating the textbooks in the first place. Publishers have merged with other publishers, cut costs by outsourcing many tasks, and gone to three-year revision cycles. Some students (those who purchase a new book in the revision year) pay a lot more, while others (who purchase a used book) pay somewhat less. The finished product is also debased. An author, for example, has requested that I forewarn our book review editor that he had tried, but failed, to correct egregious errors such as breaking chemical formulas across a line (Na on one line, Cl on the next) and weird hyphenations such as “fluori- de”. Such errors, presumably caused by a computer, would never have been made by an editor conversant with the subject, but such editors cost more than computer algorithms.

This is an extension of Gresham’s Law. We assume that a textbook is a textbook and have little opportunity to compare the quality of current textbooks with the quality that used to be achieved when each publisher had a cadre of editors and production staff who were fully conversant with the subject. Outsourcing cuts costs but it also means that many errors, some trivial, some substantive, are being introduced each time a textbook is revised and its re-composition outsourced. Authors can find and correct only so many errors, marked corrections are sometimes missed, quality is compromised, and students, who are understandably confused by errors in textbooks, are unnecessarily shortchanged. More experienced production staff and longer revision cycles would obviously be beneficial, but there is a negative incentive for publishers and authors to adopt such an approach. Bad production drives out the good, to the detriment of students, the ultimate users of the product.

Another potentially disastrous extension of Gresham’s Law involves virtual laboratory exercises. There is a real possibility that many educational institutions, at all levels, will look at the costs of real laboratories compared with computer-simulated virtual laboratories, and opt for the latter—much less expensive—alternative. This would be a bad thing. A “laboratory” program that is completely virtual cannot provide students with the same knowledge of chemistry that a real laboratory program can. For a long time, I have held that much of what students need to learn about chemistry is only accessible through direct, hands-on laboratory experience (2).

This is not to say that virtual is vacuous. People are making money via their avatars in the virtual world, Second Life (3), and Disney and others are creating virtual worlds for young children (4). Like virtual laboratories in chemistry, these virtual worlds can teach important lessons, often with much less risk to the learner. But if simulated laboratories are perceived to be of equal value in all respects, an academic Gresham’s Law will apply: Simulations will drive out real laboratories—those in which students: “appreciate that chemistry is an experimental science; know and appreciate certain chemical substances and their properties; have encountered and dealt with the problems of accurate measurement; and have learned manipulative skills” (2).

There are many examples of highly effective simulated laboratories. The ChemCollective project has many excellent simulated laboratories freely available (5). More are being created in collaborative fashion by teachers across the country. The laboratory program at my own institution includes some exercises that do not involve hands-on manipulation of chemicals and laboratory equipment. These exercises are pedagogically important in our program, and we would not want to do away with them. But we would also not want to do away with hands-on laboratory work in which students synthesize, analyze, measure, and experience the properties of chemical substances—even some that need to be handled with care and respect as a result of their dangerous properties.

Whether to completely replace real laboratories with virtual laboratories is likely to come up in your local area. Be on the watch for it and provide knowledgeable input with the goal of achieving the best possible education for chemistry students.

Literature Cited

1. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham’s_Law and http://eh.net/encyclopedia//article/selgin.gresham.law (accessed Feb 2008)

2. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 15-19.

3. http://secondlife.com/ (accessed Jan 2008)

4. Barnes, Brooks New York Times Monday, Dec 31, p C1.

5. http://www.chemcollective.org/ (accessed Feb 2008)

Note: A partial bibliography of articles about educational research on virtual laboratories is available at http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Apr/jceSubscriber/JCESupp/JCE2008p0475W.pdf

Virtual Laboratories as a teaching environment:…

Over the last few months, more high school chemistry teachers than ever before have asked me these questions and I was really surprised. However, as I inquired more deeply, I began to realize that fewer of the “new” teachers (teachers in their first 1–5 years of instruction) than ever before are able to attend regional and national conferences. As we all know, budgets almost everywhere are shrinking and it is more difficult for teachers, especially the new ones, to procure money for registration, travel, and lodging. I know that there are local ACS sections, individual school districts, nearby teachers, etc. looking for ways to honor and reach out to pre-college instructors, especially at the high school level. I find this very encouraging and want to recommend another avenue to help spread the word about valuable resources for educators at all levels.

The Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED) has an Office that you can contact to request materials for an event or presentation. Most of the materials are available FREE, and there is NO COST for the shipping if the materials are requested at least three weeks in advance of the event. These materials can include sample issues of the Journal of Chemical of Education, temporary access to JCE Online materials, information about DivCHED and how to join the Division, ACS Examinations Institute information, reduced cost gift subscriptions to the Journal, personalized gift Award Certificates and welcome packets, and more!

The Outreach Office can help presenters and event organizers provide informative and encouraging materials to attendees at no cost to themselves. I found that including these materials with my presentation packet often opened conversational doors where I could further encourage and support my fellow teaching colleagues in very real and tangible ways. I am so grateful to the many people who helped me to grow professionally. One of the biggest ways they helped me to grow was to encourage me to open myself up to greater avenues of challenge and support from DivCHED and the Journal.

Classroom Games
As spring comes to our classrooms, we often find our students getting a little more rowdy and ourselves a little less patient. How about trying a “break” in the middle of the week for everybody? In the April issue of JCE, Sevcik, et al. provide two card game approaches (p 514 & p 516) that teachers could use for “review” and give themselves and their students a break from the traditional classroom for that particular day. My students like a version of Taboo that we have played for the past two years. It is very similar to Capps’s Chemistry Taboo on page 518. I actually prefer Capps’s version, and I am going to try it the week before spring break. His scoring is significantly easier than mine. Why keep inventing the wheel? We should become better at using materials shared by others and giving credit where credit is due.

Multiple-Choice Exams
I also found the two articles about multiple-choice tests, Sundermann’s and Tellinghuisen and Sulikowski’s, provided insight as I begin to prepare my final exams for this year. During the 10 years that I served on the First-Year High School Exam committee for the ACS Examinations Institute there were many ideas and suggestions debated, but one of the hottest was the placement of the “wrong” answers. Tellinghuisen and Sulikowski state, “Our results demonstrate that performance on multiple-choice exam questions can depend strongly on the placement of questions and answers, with the answer order probably being the more important factor in the present observations…”. While serving on the committee, I learned how to accurately write valid questions that tested the concept that I really wanted the question to be testing. Serving on a test-writing committee was one of my strongest professional development activities. I encourage you to consider volunteering for a committee, too. You can do this easily by contacting the ACS Examinations Institute online.

Erica’s Take on the Issue
from Erica K. Jacobsen, JCE High School Editor

Mysteries abound in the April Amusements issue of the Journal of Chemical Education. A new author offers another installment in the chemical adventures of Sherlock Holmes. However, two other articles, while not in the style of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, present their own mysteries. Yayon and Scherz (p 541) share their take on the black box. Students develop a model for the mysterious contents of a video cassette box. I like their addition of different tests for gathering data not normally collected in black-box experiments, such as magnetism and a simulated X-ray image. Eierman’s JCE Classroom Activity challenges students to investigate the secrets of a candle and how it operates.

JCE High School Chemed Learning Information Center (CLIC)

“What is the average yearly rainfall for Phoenix?” A social studies assignment asked an extension question of this sort during my grade school years. The answer wasn’t in the text, so tracking down the answer required a trip to the local library, or a telephone call to the reference librarian. In either case, finding an answer took some time and involved hands-on searching by someone. I considered the same question while writing this column. Finding an answer did take some hands-on searching—hands on the laptop keyboard as I asked the question on the Google search engine. Second choice in the results list was a table of 30 years of annual and monthly precipitation data for cities around the country, including Phoenix. Think of nearly any question, and somewhere, someone has probably posted something about it on the Internet. It’s incredibly easy to find information, although reliability is another question entirely.

However, just because you found information at one Internet location at one point in time, doesn’t mean you’ll find it there again in the future. Ever notice the notation “Accessed Jan 2008”, when a Web site is cited in JCE articles? It lets you know that the author or someone on the staff was able to get that particular information from that particular Web site during that particular month. It’s no guarantee it will be there in the future. This hit home one month when I added a Web site to the student side of a JCE Classroom Activity. When I looked at the site, it was there; when the Activity went to the next stage in editing, literally days later, it had changed. In the March issue of JCE, Markwell and Brooks remind us of this, and report their study of the “link rot” phenomenon. They designed “a series of Web-based chemistry courses for high school teachers … the courses we developed contained numerous hyperlinks”. However, as time has gone by, “Some of the Web sites had surprising developments.” See the article for more information.

Markwell and Brooks also mention the Journal and its commitment toward preserving materials online. Indeed, all past issues beginning with 1924 are available on JCE Online (accessed Jan 2008). Past years, beginning with 1997, are also available on annual CD-ROMs. JCE CD 2007, which includes all material published in print, along with online supplements, is now available for purchase. That’s a lot of chemical education material packed into one disc!

Food for Thought
If you like to use food as a way to draw your students in to science concepts, don’t miss Diener’s Clasroom Activity Connections “No Apple Fool: Biochemistry and Taste” and Wink and Hwang-Choe’s “Pennies and Eggs: Inititation into Inquiry Learning for Preservice Elementary Education Teachers”. Diener discusses how she builds a biochemistry lesson around a JCE Classroom Activity, JCE Featured Molecules found online, and an artificial sweetener worksheet she created (available as an online supplement). Wink and Hwang-Choe’s article leads students into a thought-provoking investigation, simply by asking them to sort raw and hard-boiled eggs.

Laura’s Take on the Issue
from Laura Slocum, JCE High School Associate Editor

Nuclear chemistry was the weakest area of my chemical training, but it is one area where students often ask all types of questions. High school level textbooks frequently present surface information, but teachers have often complained that they need more to answer student questions particularly when the questions focus on nuclear weapons. Reed provides a good analysis of uranium and plutonium isotopes as they relate to use in nuclear weapons. I have already transcribed his information into my notes for next year when I cover nuclear chemistry.

I hope to see you at the ACS National Meeting in New Orleans this year. The High School Teachers program on Sunday, April 6, looks really strong. Richard Goodman, this year’s Conant Award recipient, will start the day. JCE will be part of the afternoon session. Dorothy Gabel, a highly appreciated encourager and supporter of high school teachers, is receiving this year’s ACS Award for Achievement in Research for the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry and will be speaking on Monday, April 7. Erica is unable to make it to New Orleans, but will be in Boston at the NSTA meeting, and we will both be in Bloomington this summer at the 20th BCCE. We look forward to seeing you soon!

JCE High School Chemed Learning Information Center (CLIC)

In a recent Chemical and Engineering News (1), more than 40% of position advertisements for new college chemistry faculty members included a request for candidates to provide a teaching philosophy statement as part of the application file. Another 20% requested a statement of teaching plans or interests. Almost all primarily undergraduate institutions requested a teaching philosophy statement. These statements are included in the application file along with a curriculum vitae, research plans, and letters of reference. As the application files are reviewed by the search committee and other participants in the search process, the teaching philosophy statement is used as part of the evaluation of the potential of the candidate to serve as a faculty member, particularly the candidate’s potential as a teacher.

Variability in Evaluation of Teaching Potential

For evaluation of research potential, the chemistry community has come to some consensus about what should be presented and how it will be reviewed. However, the presentation and evaluation of materials to evaluate teaching potential is less mature. It has been my experience that the value of the teaching philosophy statement is not as high as it should be and that candidates and reviewers have a wide variety of expectations and understandings of what that statement should include.

This post discusses the purposes of a teaching philosophy statement and suggests what should be included. The goal is to encourage candidates and reviewers to reflect on this important part of an application file in order to make it more effective. Teaching represents a significant fraction of the workload in most academic positions. Recruitment of qualified and dedicated individuals is a critical activity for both the hiring institutions and the candidates. The teaching philosophy statement holds a key position in the hiring process and could become much more effective with some reflective dialog.

In recent decades, issues of teaching and learning have been studied systematically at a variety of levels and models of teaching and learning have developed rapidly (2). The combination of brain imaging studies, educational psycholog y, and pedagogical developments in the disciplines is changing the way people think about teaching. As a result, a variety of literature-based books on best practices in teaching chemistry have been written (3–5). In addition, many graduate programs have recognized the advantage of helping their students learn some fundamentals about teaching. The result is that candidates for faculty positions have some resources available to help them prepare to enter the world of teaching. It is hoped that this article will help focus their teaching philosophy statements and make the candidates more viable for employment.

Purposes of the Teaching Philosophy Statement

To establish what should be included in a teaching philosophy statement, it is logical to discuss what it will be used for. Its purposes to both the reviewer and the candidate are discussed.

Reviewer Expectations

Reviewers are trying to assess the teaching potential of candidates in three areas:

1. Experience in and commitment to teaching

2. Understanding of models of learning and methods of teaching and assessment

3. Examples of applying that understanding in teaching situations

Experience and commitment are evaluated by reviewing the amount and types of teaching experience, including the amount of control the candidate had in designing the instruction. Being a TA is a valuable experience, but typically the professor retains control of most aspects of the curriculum. Experience as instructor of record clearly has higher value. A candidate’s commitment can be evaluated from the record of activities in developing teaching skills and the statements of the candidate’s enthusiasm and plans for teaching.

Then reviewers will evaluate whether the candidate has thought and/or read about teaching and learning. Candidates should demonstrate knowledge of models of how students learn, how best to encourage learning , and how to assess whether learning has occurred. The candidate’s ability to structure and articulate ideas on learning and teaching is also important.

Third, can the candidate demonstrate how to apply the stated philosophy in the classroom and lab? Linking philosophy and practice of teaching is a challenging part of being an effective instructor, as is being a reflective practitioner. Effective candidates should be able to show that they are able to do both.

Candidate Opportunities

For a candidate, the philosophy statement represents an opportunity to formally articulate personal ideas about teaching. This may be the first time a candidate has ever done this—even a candidate with significant teaching experience. This statement should accurately reflect the candidate’s ideas about teaching and not be overstated. Writing it forces the candidate to organize, express, and justify ideas about teaching. It requires literature work. Candidates should reflect on their teaching for examples of where their philosophy developed and was applied. This is a difficult task for someone who is new to teaching , but it is also a task that can help focus ideas and reasons for initiating a career in which teaching plays a major role.

The Organizational Structure

A suggested organizational structure for the teaching philosophy statement appears at the end of this post. Individual statements may emphasize or omit certain sections, but the overall structure is designed to help candidates and reviewers achieve a thorough presentation and review of teaching experience and potential. There could be many effective variations on the order of the topics, but the issues mentioned should be considered for inclusion.

As with other parts of the application file, candidates should present their philosophy in a positive, but truthful manner. Ideas and beliefs should be presented clearly and are best if backed up by experience or literature references. In addition, the teaching philosophy statement should be connected to the CV, reference letters, and research interests where appropriate. If acceptable, supporting documentation (teaching materials, teaching evaluations, etc.) can be included or at least mentioned as being available upon request. Consistency in organizational structure will make preparation and evaluation of the teaching philosophy statement easier and more effective. A clear teaching philosophy statement will demonstrate that the candidate has developed good ideas about teaching and learning through reading , teaching experience, and reflection. Reviewers will be able to more effectively compare candidates’ teaching experiences and understanding. They will see how well the candidates have recognized important aspects of teaching and applied that knowledge in the laboratory or classroom. Reviewers should realize that less experienced candidates will have less developed teaching philosophies, even if they have strong potential.

1. Experience in and Commitment to Teaching

A specific statement of experience and interest in teaching is important. Although the curriculum vitae will have information on experience, this statement can flesh out the experiences to give the reviewer a clear picture of what and when the candidate has taught, and the level of organizational control the candidate had.

• Did the candidate choose the topics and select the educational objectives?

• Did the candidate design the teaching activities and select homework and other assignments?

• Did the candidate design assessment tools and do the grading ?

The answers to these questions relate a great deal about the value of the teaching experience.

In addition, the candidate should state clearly his or her level of interest in teaching. If possible this statement should be supported by activities the candidate has done in teaching and development of teaching skills. Student evaluations, awards, or other indications of reviews of past teaching may be used to support these statements.

2. Philosophy of Teaching and Learning

The philosophy statement should address at least three separate issues.

a. Learning models: a prepared, reflective teacher will have developed ideas about how students learn. These will include cognitive models that describe what happens in a learner’s brain as well as ideas about the activities that prompt learn- ing. Ideas about variations in learning styles, preconceptions, conceptual changes, and impact of factors such as motiva- tion and level of cognitive development might be part of this section.

b. Teaching models: statements on how learning can be encouraged should be included.

Consider teacher activities:

• Communication of expectations (are they explicit or are students responsible for finding them?).

• Choice of learning environments and classroom management (individual vs. group work, level of instructor support, etc.).

• Choice of content presentation and materials (lecture, discussion, reading , lab work).

• Definition of the student/teacher relationship.

Consider student activities:

• What are the student’s responsibilities?

• What does the student do in the class or lab?

• What sort of practice and feedback is the student assigned?

c. Assessment: include comments on modes of assessment of learning.

• Are formative and summative assessment differentiated and discussed?

• Are written or performance-based assessments appropriate?

• Are the standards clear and appropriate?

• Are the assessments explicitly linked to the expectations?

These statements should be consistent with the learning models described above.

3. Teaching Interests

Describe courses that you are qualified to teach and are interested in teaching . Review the courses taught at the institution where you are applying and mention existing courses that are of interest. Suggest a new course or two that you would be interested in developing that would utilize your abilities and diversify the institution’s course offerings.

4. Summary

A summary statement should tie together the thoughts expressed previously since it will help the reviewer form a final picture of your teaching philosophy. The statement should be a clear and succinct restatement of the main ideas expressed above. This statement will have the highest probability of being read.

5. References

The reference section should be as complete as possible to give reviewers an indication of the sources of information drawn upon in developing the teaching philosophy statement. It should include literature references, other sources such as TA manuals or teaching instructor notes, as well as any of your publications related to teaching.

Continuing the Discussion

This post describes the purposes and an org anizational structure of a teaching philosophy statement. A docu ment that has been written following this structure will improve communication about the teaching accomplishments and potential of an applicant for a faculty position.

It is my hope that this guide will help candidates and reviewers as they engage in the important process of determining who will teach the next generation of chemistry students. I also hope that this commentary will stimulate the chemistry community to engage in a dialog to move toward a consensus regarding what should be included in these important documents. By way of beginning the dialog , I
am putting forward two things:

• My own Teaching/Learning Philosophy Statement (see below) to provide an example of what I have described above.

• This post, which I hop will encourage you to submit your ideas about what a teaching philosophy should be and to read what others think.

===================================

Organizational Structure: The Teaching Philosophy Statement

1. Experience in and commitment to teaching

2. Philosophy of teaching and learning

a. Learning models

b. Teaching models

c. Assessment

3. Teaching interests

4. Summary

5. References

===================================

Literature Cited

1. Academic Positions Open. Chem. Eng. News 2007, 85 (4), 49–54.

2. How People Learn ; Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking , R . R ., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000.

3. Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005.

4. Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., de Jong, Onno, Justi, Rosária, Treagust, David F., Van Driel, Jan H., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 2002.

5. Herron, J. D. The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching ; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996.

Robert J. Eierman is a member of the Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701; reierman@uwec.edu

=============================

Teaching/Learning Philosophy Statement

By Dr. Robert J. Eierman

I have been a chemistry professor at UW-Eau Claire for 24 years, and during that time I have taught all of our general chemistry courses, two analytical chemistry courses and two science teaching methods courses. Since the early 1990’s, my program of scholarly activity has focused exclusively on education issues. I have redesigned and evaluated college curriculum, have coordinated professional development activities for K-12 and college teachers, and worked to improve standardized assessment tools. My journey through education mainstreams and backwaters has helped me gain the following perspective and philosophy on issues of teaching and learning.

My late friend, mentor and golfing buddy, Dr. Richard DeGrood, expressed it well when he said of teaching “The longer I’m in this business, the more I realize, it’s all about the students.” In particular, I believe that it is all about student learning. I am committed to creating environments that enable all students to learn well. Students are responsible for their learning and when I teach well, I serve my students’ needs; I enable and empower them.

Robust models of how learning occurs are being developed [1] through multifaceted approaches that include educational psychology, physiological studies of brain function and increasingly sophisticated efforts in research on learning within various academic disciplines [2]. These learning models are a necessary foundation for creating effective environments for teaching and learning. Learners move through developmental levels that dictate the types and complexity of learning that are possible. Everyone has acquired, through experiences and other learning, conceptions about how the world works. Since the brain is an organ that seeks and recognizes patterns, conceptions are frequently strongly held ideas, connected to other related (or unrelated) chunks of knowledge. These conceptions must be addressed during learning because they are frequently at odds with accepted models and ideas. Learners must actively engage in processing new material, to discover and absorb it, to compare it to existing knowledge and to express ideas and hear others do the same, all in a safe and trusting environment [5]. The context of learning is important in relating it to other knowledge and it has a strong impact on the learners’ ability to recall it. Learners also have aptitudes or intelligences for various types of information that will favor certain learning situations over others. A learner who has developed a deep understanding of a topic must be able to explain, interpret and apply it, and to demonstrate multiple perspectives about it. Finally, good learners develop the ability to reflect on their own learning (metacognition), a vital step in achieving a deep understanding of a topic.

I believe that the best way to effectively utilize the models of learning is to systematically design curriculum and select instructional strategies to create a coherent approach to activities of teaching, learning, and assessment. I try to be a scholarly teacher, using published teaching and content selections methods [3, 4]. I have used a “backward design” strategy [6] to design course curricula. That includes first, deciding what a successful student will “look like” (goal setting), second, deciding how I will recognize the successful student (designing assessments), and third, deciding how I will get students there (designing teaching and learning activities). For example, my backward design of Quantitative Analysis (QA) made the teaching and learning activities more focused and appropriate [7]. I refocused the course to concentrate on three overarching themes. I expanded the assessment to include student-centered projects at the end of each unit, which challenge students to solve authentic problems using concepts and techniques they’ve developed earlier in the course. While teaching the course, I am driving with a roadmap. Evaluation of the reorganized curriculum shows that it is more coherent, helps students make connections more effectively, particularly lecture to lab, and leads to improved assessment of learning. The evaluation also shows that the reorganized curricular content has produced an improved approach to teaching one of the most difficult chunks of content in the course, experimental error and statistics.

In teaching and learning activities, I am focused on helping students actively engage with the material, often in cooperative groups. Students are routinely asked to briefly discuss the ideas in a piece of lecture or are asked to solve a problem using lecture concepts. They frequently do this in pairs or small groups using cooperative structures [8] and talk aloud strategies [9]. The cooperative group work gives students the opportunity to articulate their thinking about the concept and construct knowledge with relatively rapid feedback provided. In order to make up for lecture presentation time that is used for in-class processing, guided reading assignments are made where students are given a reading assignment and a set of questions to answer during the reading. This enables them to be prepared for the problems and discussions in class. Students who don’t keep up with the reading struggle during class, which encourages them to read. In addition, cognitive processes are explicitly discussed with students in order to help them learn about learning. Explicit reading strategies (how to read the chemistry textbook) and problem solving strategies are presented and encouraged. In addition, the cooperative structures are explained and justified based on simple learning models.

I believe that in order to recognize when deep learning has occurred, a range of assessment types should be employed [10]. I use classroom assessment techniques formatively [11] to help me and my students recognize what has been learned and what hasn’t. These assessments support homework, lab reports and quizzes in engaging and motivating students. Exams represent larger, more summative assessments. Beyond exams, I use academic prompts and performance tasks [6]. In my QA and General Chemistry courses, these assessments have taken the form of presenting students with authentic problems to solve or questions to answer, along with a set of resources to use, usually in lab. Students have flexibility and options in carrying them out, and they report on their process and the solution to the problem. Prompts and tasks enable me to assess deep understanding of concepts and processes more effectively than exams. Academic prompts and small performance tasks are excellent additions, both in terms of adding challenge and interest to the students, and in enhancing my ability to recognize students who really “get it”.

Is my chemistry teaching better than it was 24 years ago, when I first stepped in front of a class? I believe the best way to answer that question is to use research methods to investigate issues of teaching and learning in my courses [2]. A typical “scholarship of teaching and learning” study involves the creation of a focused question regarding an issue of teaching and learning in a course I’m teaching. Next, the types of evidence necessary to answer the question are identified and the tools needed to gather the evidence are designed. Typically, evidence is gathered regarding impacts of the teaching/learning structure on student learning and on student attitude toward the structure or the material. The course is taught, evidence is gathered and analyzed, and conclusions drawn regarding answers to the focused question. The results must be disseminated and critiqued by other teachers and scholars, particularly those in the researcher’s discipline. I have completed two studies in the past several years that have helped me improve my teaching. I have been presented results from these studies in seminars at local and national meetings and I am preparing them for publication. I find that treating my classroom as a lab designed to improve learning (and teaching) is an excellent way to move teaching from being a private, trial-and-error activity to a scholarly effort that builds, confirms and improves effective models of teaching and learning.

In summary, I believe that students have the responsibility for learning, but must be provided with the appropriate environment and support to enable them to learn. Assessment of learning must be tied to learning goals and selected to appropriately match the type of assessment to the depth of learning. Systematic and scholarly processes are important in continuing to develop the best possible learning environments.

I must give credit to the many colleagues who have helped me learn about teaching, including UWEC Chemists and my science education colleagues Dr. Bob Hollon, Dr. Mickey Kolis, Dr. Erik Hendrickson and Dr. Karen Havholm. I am also grateful to the Wisconsin Teaching Scholar and the UWEC NET Teaching Scholar Programs for their support.

References

1. National Research Council, How People Learn, 2^nd ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.

2. Hutchings, P. ed., Opening Lines, Stanford, CA: Carnegie Publications, 2000.

3. Gilbert, J. K. et al, Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

4. Pienta, N. J.; Cooper, M. M.; Greenbowe, T. J., Chemist’s Guide to Effective Teaching, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

5. Palmer, P., The Courage to Teach, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1998,

6. Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J., Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1998.

7. Eierman, R. J., in Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, Mabrouk, P. A. ed., Washington, DC: ACS, 2007.

8. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A., Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity, Washington, DC : School of Ed. and Human Development, George Washington University, 1991.

9. Whimbey, A.; Lochhead, J., Problem Solving and Comprehension, Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press, 1982.

10. Suskie, L., Assessing Student Learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2004

11. Angelo, T.A.; Cross K.P., Classroom Assessment Techniques 2^nd ed, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1993.

Teaching Philosophy