Lessons from running webinars

We are now coming up to half way for the webinar series I launched this year. Webinars run monthly, thereabouts, and are on the theme of chemistry education research. I’ve never hosted webinars before so it has been interesting, and when the technology decides not to work, heart-stopping. Useful responses to a post (plea) requesting ideas/guidance are listed here. I think I have incorporated most of the suggestions.

CERGinar 2017 - 2018 Series

Some thoughts on format

What’s been a real pleasure has been the opportunity to hear speakers I love give a talk. This year, because I was testing the water, I chose speakers who I have heard and who I know will do a good job, and somewhat selfishly that I want to hear again. This led to a list of 42 names scrawled on my office noticeboard, and picking just a few of these was really tough.

Alison Flynn set us off to a stellar talk with a talk that ran the spectrum from methods of doing the research right through to implementation in teaching. This was really popular and meant that it addressed the difficulty of the breadth of audience types. Keith Taber made us think more about methodologies… are experimental approaches appropriate, and what are their limitations? Nathaniel Grove picked up on the format set by Alison, again looking at methods and then looking at implications, and this seems to be a formula that works. In both cases, this meant that a natural break in proceedings was a chance to have a mid-presentation set of questions. And that echoes something I have learned from MICER: people love to discuss. Opportunities for discussion compete with wanting to squeeze as much out of the speakers as possible, and the balance is fine tuned. For an hour slot, thought, 45/15 seems to work out. Nathan’s talk included the guest chair Niki Kaiser; this was really useful as it meant I could focus on technical matters, Niki asked questions, and it also means the whole thing is less “my” webinar series, but one of the community.

How to choose speakers?

As well as the criterion (this time around) of having seen all the speakers present, there was the difficulty of choosing just a few from my list of favourites. Donald Wink is the next speaker in the series. He gave a talk at Gordon CERP last year, which was stellar, probably the best talk I heard in a year of many conferences. It was one of those talks where you stop taking notes and just listen to try to absorb as much as possible. His clarity on discussing case studies is one that I think deserves a very wide audience. Then, we have Nicole Graulich, who won best poster at Gordon CERP, meaning she got to give a short talk at the end of the conference. I was left wanting to hear much more. Ginger is doing some amazing work around students writing, and Vicente… well we all want to hear Vicente. Both of these are again Gordon speakers. I thought that this range of speakers represented some well established figures, some newer to a wider audience, different aspects of chemistry, and a balance of gender. But I’m sure I can choose another set that will fulfill those criteria.

On and on?

Chemistry education research, as a young discipline in the UK, has two difficulties as I see it. One: there is no money. And two: as there is no money, people do a lot of this work in their spare time or squeezed into a very busy day job. That means that things like this tend to get squeezed, and it becomes difficult for people to attend. The purpose of these webinars was to act as a proxy for the academic seminars our colleagues will be used to in chemistry departments, except focussed on education.  I have to say I thought that attendance (because of point 2) would be very low, but it has been way above expectations, with lots of discussion in the chat area.

I’d be interested in hearing from people as to whether we should continue with a new series in the Autumn, and proposed ideas for format/speakers. In the mean time, do register for Prof Donald Wink’s seminar, 21st Feb. You won’t be disappointed.

 

Bibliography for researching women in chemistry c1900

Some references to 19 petitioners to Chemical Society and others

This list was compiled for the purpose of creating/editing Wikipedia articles about Women in Chemistry. You can read a bit about the rationale for this here and more about the Women in Red project here.

Bibliography notes

  • Wikipedia link given if known;
  • Some of these are described in RSC “Faces of Chemistry” – links given;
  • CWTL = “Chemistry was their life”main biographic reference, see also index to that book;
  • Creese 1991, tends to focus on scientific contribution in the context of the time and is also good for who they worked for/with and Appendix details publications (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4027231);
  • BHC 2003 – by the Raynham Carters, so information similar to CWTL, but often a little more detailed in the context of admission to professional/learned Societies (Available at: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/v28-2/v28-2%20p110-119.pdf);
  • EiC2004 – article on Ida Freund with special focus on her educational initiatives and some personal anecdotes (Education in Chemistry, 2004, 136-137 – PDF available at this link);
  • EiC2006 – women of Bedford college (Education in Chemistry, 2006, 77-79 – PDF available at this link);
  • CiB1999 – Detailed overview of Gertrude Walsh and Edith Usherwood (Lady Ingold) (Chemistry in Britain, 1999, 45 – 46);
  • CiB1991 – Story of the 1904 petition letter, passing mention to three main players involved (Chemistry in Britain, 1991, 233-238);
  • Brock 2011– Section on Women Chemists, with lots of detail on Edith Usherwood
  • 1st WW – British Women Chemists and the First World War – details of Taylor and Whiteley

Bibliography (please let me know of any useful additions)

E(lizabeth) Eleanor Field CWTL pp152-153

BHC 2003, p115

 

Emily C Fortey CWTL pp203-204

Creese 1991, p291

BHC 2003, p115

 

Grace C Toynbee (Mrs Percy Frankland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Frankland

CWTL pp424-425

BHC 2003, p116

 

Ida Freund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Freund

http://www.rsc.org/diversity/175-faces/all-faces/ida-freund

CWTL pp226-229

Creese 1991; p287

BHC 2003, p114

EiC2004

CiB1991

 

Mildred M Mills (Mildred Gostling) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_May_Gostling

CWTL pp429-430

BHC 2003, p115

 

Hilda J Hartle CWTL 479-481

BHC 2003, p114

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/v36-1/v36-1%20p35-42.pdf

Edith E Humphrey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Humphrey

CWTL 148-150

BHC 2003, p116

EiC2006

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/awards/Citations/Vorlesung_Alfred_Werner_CGZ08.ppt&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj0wPLcxOTWAhWMExoKHU4RB5YQFggHMAE&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AOvVaw2-4FA_6QDF70h-y9tb4zjS (PPT file in German showing Humphrey’s thesis)

Dorothy Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Marshall (Stub)

CWTL pp229-230

BHC 2003, p115

 

Margaret Seward (Mrs McKillop) CWTL 105-107

BHC 2003, p115

 

Ida Smedley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Maclean

http://www.rsc.org/diversity/175-faces/all-faces/dr-ida-smedley

CWTL pp58-61, also 179-180

Creese 1991, p282-284 (See also Wheldale and Homer)

BHC 2003, p114

EiC2004

CiB1991

 

Alice Emily Smith CWTL pp298-299

Creese 1991, p292

BHC 2003, p116

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/v26-2/v26-2%20p134-142.pdf

Millicent Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Millicent_Taylor (“neutrality disputed”)

CWTL pp200-202

BHC 2003, p115

1st WW

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/v36-2/v36-2%20p68-74.pdf

M. Beatrice Thomas CWTL pp230-232

Creese 1991; p287

BHC 2003, p114

EiC2004

 

Martha A Whiteley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Annie_Whiteley

http://www.rsc.org/diversity/175-faces/all-faces/dr-martha-annie-whiteley

CWTL pp122-124

Creese 1991, p289, see also p293, p297

BHC 2003, p114

EiC2004

CiB1991

1st WW

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/bulletin_open_access/num20/num20%20p42-45.pdf (full bio) with individual picture and group picture)

Sibyl T Widdows CWTL pp160-161

BHC 2003, p115

 

Katherine I Williams CWTL pp200-203

Creese 1991, p291

BHC 2003, p115

 

 

References to other women chemists from this time (incomplete)

 

Muriel Wheldale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Wheldale_Onslow

Creese 1991, p284

Annie Homer Creese 1991, p284
Edith Gertrude Willcock Creese 1991, p285
Marjory Stephenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjory_Stephenson

Creese 1991, p285

Eleanor Balfour Sidgwick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Mildred_Sidgwick

Creese 1991, p286

Emily Aston Creese 1991, p288
Frances Micklethwait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Micklethwait

Creese 1991, p288, see also 293

Ida Homfray Creese 1991, p289
Effie Marsden Creese 1991, p289
Harriette Chick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriette_Chick

Creese 1991, p290

Eva Hibbert Creese 1991, p292
Mary Stephen Leslie EiC2006
Violet Trew EiC2006
Helen Archbold (Mrs Porter) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Porter

EiC2006

Rosalind Henley EiC2006
Edith Usherwood CiB1999

Brock 2011, pp218 – 230

Gertrude Walsh CiB1999

How to do a literature review when studying chemistry education

It’s the time of the year to crank up the new projects. One challenge when aiming to do education research is finding some relevant literature. Often we become familiar with something of interest because we heard someone talk about it or we read about it somewhere. But this may mean that we don’t have many references or further reading that we can use to continue to explore the topic in more detail.

So I am going to show how I generally do literature searches. I hope that my approach will show you how you can source a range of interesting and useful papers relevant to the topic you are studying, as well as identify some of the key papers that have been written about this topic. What I tend to find is that there is never any shortage of literature, regardless of the topic you are interested in, and finding the key papers is a great way to get overviews of that topic.

Where to search?

For literature in education, there are three general areas to search. Each have advantages and disadvantages.

For those with access (in university) Web of Science will search databases which, despite the name, include Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities Indexes. Its advantage is that it is easy to narrow down searches to very specific terms, times, and research topics, meaning you can quickly source a list of relevant literature. Its disadvantage is that it doesn’t search a lot of material that may be relevant but that doesn’t pass the criteria for inclusion in the database (peer review, particular process regarding review, etc). So for example, Education in Chemistry articles do not appear here (As they are not peer reviewed as EiC is a periodical), and CERP articles only appeared about 10 years ago, thanks to the efforts of the immediate past editors. CERP is there now, but the point is there are a lot of discipline based journals (e.g. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry) that publish good stuff but that isn’t in this database.

The second place to look is ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) – a US database that is very comprehensive. It includes a much wider range of materials such as conference abstracts, although you can limit to peer review. I find ERIC very good, although it can link to more obscure material that can be hard to access.

Finally, there is Google Scholar. This is great as everyone knows how to use it, it links to PDFs of documents are shown if they are available, and it is very fast. The downside is that it is really hard to narrow your search and you get an awful lot of irrelevant hits. But it can be useful if you have very specific search terms. Google Scholar also shows you who cited the work, which is useful, and more extensive than Web of Science’s equivalent feature, as Google, like ERIC, looks at everything, not just what is listed in the database. Google is also good at getting into books which you may be able to view.

A practice search

I am going to do a literature search for something I am currently interested in: how chemistry students approach studying. I’m interested in devising ways to improve how we assist students with study tasks, and so I want to look to the literature to find out how other people have done this. For the purpose of this exercise, we will see that “study” is a really hard thing to look for because of the many meanings of the word. I intend it to mean how students interact with their academic work, but of course “study” is very widely used in scientific discourse and beyond.

It’s important to write down as precisely as you can what it is you are interested in, because the first challenge when you open up the search database is to choose your search terms.

Let’s start with Web of Science. So I’ve said I’m interested in studying chemistry. So what if I put in

study AND chem*

where chem* is my default term for the various derivatives that can be used – e.g. chemical.

study and chemstar

Well, we can see that’s not much use, we get over 1 million hits! By the time I go through those my students will have graduated. The problem of course is that ‘study’ has a general meaning of investigation as well as a specific one that we mean here.

Let’s go back. What am I interested in. I am interested in how students approach study. So how might authors phrase this? Well they might talk about “study approaches”, or “study methods” or “study strategies” or “study habits”, or “study skills”, or… well there’s probably a few more, but that will be enough to get on with.

(“study approach*” or “study method*” or “study strateg*” or “study habit*” or “study skill*”) AND Chem*

So I will enter the search term as shown. Note that I use quotations; this is to filter results to those which mention these two words in sequence. Any pair that match, AND a mention of chem* will return in my results. Of course this rules out “approaches to study” but we have to start somewhere.

Search2

How does this look? Over 500. OK, better than a million+, but we can see that some of the hits are not relevant at all.

search2 results

In Web of Science, we can filter by category – a very useful feature. So I will refine my results to only those in the education category.

refine search2

This returns about 80 hits. Much better. Before we continue, I am going to exclude conference proceedings. The reason for this is that very often you can’t access the text of these and they clutter up the results. So I will exclude these in the same way as I refined for education papers above, except in this case selecting ‘exclude’. We’re now down to 60 hits, which is a nice enough number for an afternoon’s work.

Thinning

Let’s move on to the next phase – an initial survey of your findings. For this phase, you need to operate some form of meticulous record keeping, or you will end up repeating your efforts at some future date. It’s also worth remembering what we are looking for: approaches people have used to develop chemistry students’ study skills. In my case I am interested in chemistry and in higher education. It is VERY easy to get distracted here and move from this phase to the next without completing this phase; trust me this will just mean you have to do the initial trawl all over again at some stage.

This trawl involves scanning titles and then abstracts to see if the articles are of interest. The first one in the list looks irrelevant, but clicking on it suggests that it is indeed for chemistry. It’s worth logging for now. I use the marked list feature, but you might choose to use a spreadsheet or a notebook. Just make sure it is consistent! Scrolling through the hits, we can very quickly see the hits that aren’t relevant. You can see here that including “study approach” in our search terms is going to generate quite a few false hits because it was picked up by articles mentioning the term “case study approach”.

I’ve shown some of the hits I marked of interest below. I have reduced my number down to 21. This really involved scanning quickly through abstract, seeing if it mentioned anything meaningful about study skills (the measurement or promotion of study skills) and if it did, it went in.

marked list 1

Snowballing

You’ll see in the marked list that some papers have been cited by other papers. It’s likely (though not absolutely so) that if someone else found this paper interesting, then you might too. Therefore clicking on the citing articles will bring up other more recent articles, and you can thin those out in the same way. Another way to generate more sources is to scan through the papers (especially the introductions) to see which papers influenced the authors of the papers you are interested in. You’ll often find there are a common few. Both these processes can “snowball” so that you generate quite a healthy number of papers to read. Reading will be covered another time… You can see now why about 50 initial hits is optimum. This step is a bit slow. But being methodical is the key!

A point to note: it may be useful to read fully one or two papers – especially those which appear to be cited a lot – before going into the thinning/snowballing phases as this can help give an overall clarity and context to the area, and might mean you are more informed about thinning/snowballing.

A practice search – Google Scholar

What about Google Scholar? For those outside universities that don’t have access to Web of Science, this is a good alternative. I enter my search terms using the Advanced search term accessed by the drop down arrow in the search box: you’ll see I am still using quotation marks to return exact matches but again there are limitations for this – for example strategy won’t return strategies, and Google isn’t as clever. So depending on the hit rate, you may wish to be more comprehensive.

Google

With Google, over 300 hits are returned, but there isn’t a simple way to filter them. You can sort by relevance, according to how Google scores that, or by date, and you can filter by date. The first one in the list by Prosser and Trigwell is quite a famous one on university teacher’s conceptions of teaching, and not directly of interest here – although of course one could argue that we should define what our own conception of teaching is before we think about how we are going to promote particular study approaches to students. But I’m looking for more direct hits here. With so many hits, this is going to involve a pretty quick trawl through the responses. Opening hits in new tabs means I can keep the original list open. Another hit links to a book – one advantage of Google search, although getting a sense of what might be covered usually means going to the table of contents. A problem with books though is that only a portion may be accessible. But the trawl again involves thinning and snowballing, the latter is I think much more important in Google, and as mentioned scopes a much broader citing set.

Searching with ERIC

Finally, let’s repeat with ERIC. Putting in the improved Web of Science term returns 363 hits (or 114 if I select peer-reviewed only).

Eric search

ERIC allows you to filter by journal, and you can see here that it is picking up journals that wouldn’t be shown in Web of Science, and would be lost or unlikely in Google. You can also filter by date, by author, and by level (although the latter should be treated with some caution). Proquest is a thesis database, so would link to postgraduate theses (subscription required, but you could contact the supervisor).

eric filters

The same process of thinning and snowballing can be applied. ERIC is a little frustrating as you have to click into the link to find out anything about it, whereas the others mentioned show you, for example, the number of citations. Also, for snowballing, ERIC does not show you the link to citing articles, instead linking to the journal webpage, which means a few clicks. But for a free database, it is really good.

Which is the best?

It’s interesting to note that in the full search I did using these three platforms, each one threw up some results that the others didn’t. I like Web of Science but that’s what I am used to. ERIC is impressive in its scope – you can get information on a lot of education related publications, although getting access to some of the more obscure ones might be difficult. Google is very easy and quick, but for a comprehensive search I think it is a bit of a blunt instrument.  Happy searching!

A new review on pre-labs in chemistry

Much of my work over the last year has focussed on pre-labs. In our research, we are busy exploring the role of pre-labs and their impact on learning in the laboratory. In practice, I am very busy making a seemingly endless amount of pre-lab videos for my own teaching.

These research and practice worlds collided when I wanted to answer the question: what makes for a good pre-lab? It’s taken a year of reading and writing and re-reading and re-writing to come up with some sensible answer, which is now published as a review.

There are dozens of articles about pre-labs and the first task was to categorise these – what are others doing and why they are doing it. We came up with a few themes, including the most common pair: to introduce the theory behind a lab and to introduce experimental techniques. So far so obvious. Time and again these reports – we gathered over 60 but there are likely more our search didn’t capture – highlighted that pre-labs had benefit, including unintended benefits (such as a clear increase in confidence about doing labs).

Why were pre-labs showing this benefit? This was rarer in reports. Some work, including a nice recent CERP paper, described the use of a underpinning framework to base the design of pre-labs upon and meant that the outcomes could be considered in that framework (in that case: self-regulation theory). But we were looking for something more… over-arching; a framework to consider the design considerations of pre-labs that took account of the unique environment of learning in the laboratory.

We have opted to use the complex learning framework as a framework for learning in laboratories, for various reasons. It is consistent with cognitive load theory, which is an obvious basis for preparative work. It describes the learning scenario as one where several strands of activity are drawn together, and is ‘complex’ because this act of drawing together requires significant effort (and support). And it offers a clear basis on the nature of information that should be provided in advance of the learning scenario. Overall, it seemed a sensible ‘fit’ for thinking about laboratory learning, and especially for preparing for this learning.

What makes for a good pre-lab?

We drew together the learning from the many reports on pre-lab literature with the tenets from complex learning framework to derive some guidelines to those thinking about developing pre-laboratory activities. These are shown in the figure. A particular advantage of the complex learning framework is the distinction between supportive and procedural information, which aims to get to the nitty-gritty of the kind of content that should be incorporated into a pre-lab activity. Casual readers should note that the “procedural” used here is a little more nuanced than just “procedure” that we think about in chemistry. We’ve elaborated a lot on this.

I hope that this review is useful – it has certainly been a learning experience writing it. The pre-print of the review is now available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00140A and the final formatted version should follow shortly.

5 guielines for developing prelabs

A view from Down Under

Melbourne Seventh City of Empire, part of the Australia 1930s Exhibition at National Gallery of Victoria
Melbourne Seventh City of Empire, part of the “Brave New World: Australia 1930s” Exhibition at National Gallery of Victoria

I’ve spent the last two week in Australia thanks to a trip to the Royal Australian Chemical Institute 100th Annual Congress in Melbourne. I attended the Chemistry Education symposium.

So what is keeping chemistry educators busy around this part of the world? There are a lot of similarities, but some differences. While we wrestle with the ripples of TEF and the totalitarian threat of learning gains, around here the acronym of fear is TLO: threshold learning outcomes.  As I understand it, these are legally binding statements stating that university courses will ensure students will graduate with the stated outcomes. Institutions are required to demonstrate that these learning outcomes are part of their programmes and identify the level to which they are assessed. This all sounds very good, except individuals on the ground are now focussing on identifying where these outcomes are being addressed. Given that they are quite granular, this appears to be a huge undertaking and is raising questions like: where and to what extent is teamwork assessed in a programme?

Melbourne from the Shrine
Melbourne from the Shrine

This process does appear to have promoted a big interest in broader learning outcomes, with lots of talks on how to incorporate transferable skills into the curriculum, and some very nice research into students’ awareness of their skills. Badges are of interest here and may be a useful way to document these learning outcomes in a way that doesn’t need a specific mark. Labs were often promoted as a way of addressing these learning outcomes, but I do wonder how much we can use labs for learning beyond their surely core purpose of teaching practical chemistry.

Speaking of labs, there was some nice work on preparing for laboratory work and on incorporating context into laboratory work. There was (to me) a contentious proposal that there be a certain number of laboratory activities (such as titrations) that are considered core to a chemist’s repertoire, and that graduation should not be allowed until competence in those core activities be demonstrated. Personally I think chemistry is a broader church than that, and it will be interesting to watch that one progress. A round-table discussion spent a good bit of time talking about labs in light of future pressures of funding and space; and it does seem that we are still not quite clear about what the purpose of labs are. Distance education – which Australia has a well-established head start in – was also discussed, and I was really glad to hear someone with a lot of experience in this say that it is possible to generate a community with online learners, but that it takes a substantial personal effort. The lab discussion continued to the end, with a nice talk on incorporating computational thinking into chemistry education, with suggestions on how already reported lab activities might be used to achieve this.

Gwen Lawrie delivers her Award Address
Gwen Lawrie delivers her Award Address

Of course it is the personal dimension that is the real benefit of these meetings, and it was great to meet some faces old and new. Gwen Lawrie wasn’t on the program as the announcement of her award of Education Division Medal was kept secret for as long as possible. I could listen to Gwen all day, and her talk had the theme “Chasing Rainbows”, which captured so eloquently what it means to be a teacher-researcher in chemistry education, and in a landscape that continues to change. [Gwen’s publications are worth trawling] Gwen’s collaborator Madeline Schultz (a Division Citation Winner) spoke about both TLOs and on reflections on respected practitioners on their approaches to teaching chemistry – an interesting study using a lens of pedagogical content knowledge. From Curtin, I (re-)met Mauro Mocerino (who I heard speak in Europe an age ago on clickers) who spoke here of his long standing work on training demonstrators. Also from that parish, it was a pleasure to finally meet Dan Southam. I knew Dan only through others; a man “who gets things done” so it was lovely to meet him in his capacity as Chair of the Division and this symposium, and to see that his appellation rang true. And it was nice to meet Elizabeth Yuriev, who does lovely work exploring how students approach physical chemistry problem and on helping students with problem solving strategies.

Dinner Date
Dinner Date

There were lots of other good conversations and friendly meetings, demonstrating that chemistry educators are a nice bunch regardless of location. I wasn’t the only international interloper; Aishling Flaherty from University of Limerick was there to spread her good work on demonstrator training – an impressive programme she has developed and is now trialling in a different university and a different country. And George Bodner spoke of much of his work in studying how students learn organic chemistry, and in particular the case of “What to do about Parker”. The memory of Prof Bodner sitting at the back of my talk looking at my slides through a telescopic eye piece is a happy one that will stay with me for a long time. Talk of organic chemistry reminds me of a presentation about the app Chirality – 2 which was described – it covers lots of aspects about revising organic chemistry, and looked really great.

The Pioneer, National Gallery of Victoria
The Pioneer, National Gallery of Victoria

My slightly extended trip was because I had the good fortune to visit the research group of Prof Tina Overton, who moved to Melbourne a few years ago, joining native Chris Thompson in growing the chemistry education group at Monash. It was an amazing experience immersing in a vibrant and active research group, who are working on things ranging from student critical thinking, chemists’ career aspirations, awareness of transferable skills, and the process and effect of transforming an entire laboratory curriculum. I learned a lot as I always do from Tina and am extremely grateful for her very generous hosting. I leave Australia now, wondering if I can plan a journey in 2018 for ICCE in Sydney.

From Hokusai exhibition, NGV
From Hokusai exhibition, NGV. My interpretation of students managing in a complex learning environment

On the need for funding in UK Chemistry Higher Education

In 2014/2015, 18,495 people opted to study undergraduate chemistry at higher education in the UK. What do we know about their experience of learning chemistry?

A search of Web of Science for those based in the UK publishing about chemistry education in the period 2014, 2015, 2016 was conducted. This returned 88 hits. An initial screening reduced this number to 71. Those removed included things like returns for a “Wales” hit that was New South Wales, or book chapters that weren’t about chemistry teaching in classrooms, or authors based in the UK but writing about non-UK classrooms.

71

Of these 71, the results were categorised as follows. 7 papers referred to chemical engineering, or something specific about chemistry for engineers. While these may have value to chemists, they are not about teaching chemistry to chemists. Similarly, 1 paper was specifically discussing some detail of chemistry relevant to a pharmacy syllabus.

63

This left 63. A further 10 articles were about school chemistry. 6 were editorials, and 2 were reviews about some aspect of chemistry, which, while written in the UK, obviously extended their reach into international curricula. A further 3 were about informal chemistry; public or outreach or the presentation of chemistry in popular books.

42

So now we are left with 42 articles about chemistry education in higher education written by someone based in the UK. The majority of these – 22 – were about something to do with laboratory work; typically some new laboratory experiment, but occasionally some approach to doing something in the lab (e.g. alternative lab reports). A further 16 were categorised innovative ideas; unusual or novel approaches that are being reported because of novelty. The evaluation on whether such innovations are effective or not in this category tend to be based on student evaluations or questionnaires, and typically lack a formal research basis.

4

This leaves 4 articles published in 2014, 2015, 2016 that described something about the curriculum or the learners in higher education chemistry. 2 of these articles were written by Overton and Randles at Hull, both of whom are now abroad. The remaining 2 were on how well maths prepares students for studying chemistry – part of a large project looking at the relevance of maths for a variety of subjects; and on the design and evaluation of a polymer course. That’s it.

Chem Ed Publications in UK

We know nothin’

I argue then that we have no idea how students experience chemistry in higher education in the UK. We have no idea how well school chemistry prepares them, what their difficulties are, how they study, or what particular aspects of studying the UK chemistry degree are challenging. We’ve no idea how students experience lectures, what they learn in laboratories, nor how tutorials run. We don’t know how students balance workload, how they study, what affect part-time work has, nor whether students are able to discuss the relevance of chemistry to everyday life. We get occasional glimpses about issues around students’ employability, thanks to the work such as that done at Nottingham (CERP, 2017, outside the time boundary of this search) but we have never revisited the glory of Hanson and Overton, 2010. We will of course have copious amounts of data on students’ entry performance. We can guess that we will have normal distributions in grade data in our annual assessments, and that external examiners will generally be satisfied. Entry and output detail are all we can cling on to.

Around 19,000 chemistry students will be starting in September. We desperately need some funding to begin to find out in a serious way what experience awaits them.

200th Blog Post

This is my 200th blog post. Now I should say that, while I am impressed with that number, given that it is over seven years since Róisín Donnelly and Muireann O’Keeffe gently broached the idea of starting a blog, it is not a fantastic output rate: to borrow Kevin Bridges joke about losing 4 stone over 10 years, I don’t think I’ll be writing a book on how to blog.

I’m going to avoid the kind of post where I reflect on my blogging, think about what I’ve learned, and look with renewed wistful enthusiasm to the future: fail better! I’m also going to avoid my usual call to encourage others to blog, as my conversion rate is low. (Briefly: yes you have something to say, yes you can write, yes it is worth the time, and you’ll only be threatened with litigation once).

So instead I will celebrate by highlighting a few blogs I like to go to for my chemistry/education fix. I should say this isn’t meant to be encyclopedic, but rather the blogs that, when I see a new post, I will make time to read it. I have previously done more formal summaries for Nature Chemistry and Education in Chemistry.  (I see you have to pay $18 to read the Nature Chemistry one! Holy Mother of Jerusalem how did we get to this state?)

Read these blogs:

Katherine Haxton: Possibilities Endless – I love Katherine’s blog; it’s always a dose of pragmatism and reality, mixed in with something useful. She’s honest and funny and it is all very refreshing;  This is also one of the very few blogs left in the world where people seem to leave comments.

Blogs about chemistry teaching and evidence based practice

  • David Paterson: Thoughts on chemistry and education – think this is a newish blog. Given its title, its appeal is apparent. And it doesn’t disappoint. It’s clear that the author is someone who thinks very seriously about teaching and his blogs are wonderful summaries and conversations about those thoughts.
  • Kristy Turner: Adventures in chemistry education on both sides of the transition between school and HE – just like the title, Kristy is someone with a lot to say and this blog is one of the outlets she uses. Always some good insight and highlighting things you mightn’t have thought of.
  • Niki Kaiser: NDHS Blogspot – This is an amazing website and growing resource. I can’t actually keep up with it but Niki and others post stuff of on lots of aspects of teaching chemistry; cognitive science being the strand I follow. Very useful.

Blogs about chemistry education research and ongoing projects

This category is sadly not well occupied. How wonderful would it be to get updates and insights into the work people are doing. We tried with our badging lab skills site, and it got lots of interest, so despite promising not to, I do really encourage people to do it. Two nascent blogs in this category offering real hope are:

  • Stephen George-Williams Investigating the effects of Transforming Laboratory Learning – Stephen is updating about his PhD project which is centred around lab education. I think this is a great idea and it will be interesting to follow to see the kind of data gathered and the kinds of processes done with it.
  • Nimesh Mistry Mistry Research Group – Nimesh is also blogging about his observations as part of research in his group. His latest one documents questions students ask in the lab, and plans to think about how he will use those observations in planning lab design. More please!

I’m sure I have forgotten some and hope that if I have, I am reminded, so that I can apologise most profusely.

 

 

Reflections on #MICER17

Two related themes emerged for me from the Methods in Chemistry Education Research meeting last week: confidence and iteration.

Let’s start where we finished: Georgios Tsaparlis’ presentation gave an overview of his career studying problem solving. This work emerged out of Johnstone’s remarkable findings around working memory and mental demand (M-demand).1,2 Johnstone devised a simple formula – if the requirements of a task were within the capability of working memory, students would be able to process the task; if not, students would find it difficult. This proposal was borne out of the plots of performance against complexity (demand) which showed a substantial drop at the point where M-demand exceeded working memory, and these findings seeded a remarkable amount of subsequent research.

However, things are seldom as simple as they seem and Tsaparlis’ work involved studying this relationship in different areas of chemistry – looking, for example, at how students solve problems in organic chemistry compared to physical chemistry, and the effect of the type of question. Each study was an iteration, an investigation of another aspect of this multi-dimensional jigsaw, aiming to make a little bit more sense each time. Sometimes the results led to an ill-fitting piece, with data being consigned to a desk drawer for a few years until further study allowed it to be explored in a new light. Towards the end of this arc of work, he began to move away from linear modelling, where we look at the strength of individual aspects on an overall hypothesis, to more complex models such as the “random walk”. It is another iteration.

The point to make here is there was no study that said: this is how students solve equilibrium questions. Rather, each study added a little more to understanding of a particular model framed around this understanding. Indeed Keith Taber outlined in his Ethics workshop the importance of context and situation in publishing results. Things are rarely definitive and usually context dependent.

For me this is reassuring. Just like Johnstone’s “ON-OFF” findings for working memory, there is a fear that one is either able to complete education research or one isn’t; a few participants indicated that “confidence” was one of the barriers in getting involved in education research in responding to Suzanne Fergus’ pre-meeting prompts, which guided her talk on writing research questions. I remember talking to an eminent chemistry professor who said something along the lines of “never look back!” – to just publish what you know to be your best understanding (and instrumentation) at a given time, accepting that more studies and analysis might lead to more understanding.

While this probably wasn’t intended to be as carefree as I leverage it here, there will always be one more publication, one better approach, one alternative understanding. The task then is to continually inform and develop our understanding of what it is we wish to understand. The action research cycles outlined more formally by Orla Kelly in her presentation facilitate this, although of course one might complete several cycles before considering publication. But I think iterations happen naturally as any research study progresses. Graham Scott illustrated this nicely in his presentation; later publications adding further depth to earlier ones. Stewart Kirton discussed building this iteration onto the design of research instruments.

Our task as education researchers then is to ensure that we are publishing to the best of or understanding and publishing with good intent – that we believe what we are saying at a particular time is an honest overview of our understanding of our study at that time in a given context.

Our task as practitioners is to move on from the duality of things that “work” and things that “don’t work”. The education literature isn’t unique in that it tends to publish more positive results than not, so when looking for the “best” way to do something, a keen reader may soon become overwhelmed, and even frustrated with the education literature for its lack of clarity. A task of those attending MICER then is not necessarily in translating research into practice; a common call, but rather communicating a greater awareness of the process of education research, along with how to meaningfully interpret outcomes so that they may be used – or not – in our teaching of chemistry.

 

We are grateful to Chemistry Education Research and Practice for their support of this event, along with the RSC interest groups: Tertiary Education Group and Chemistry Education Research Group.

Methods in Chemistry Education Research 2017 Welcome Slide

[1] J. Chem. Educ., 1984, 61, p 847

[2] Education in Chemistry, 1986, 23, 80-84

Wikipedia and writing

Academics have a complicated relationship with Wikipedia. There’s a somewhat reluctant acknowledgement that Wikipedia is an enormously used resource, but as the graphical abstract accompanying this recent J Chem Ed article1 shows, WE ARE NOT TOO HAPPY ABOUT IT. Others have embraced the fact that Wikipedia is a well-used resource, and used this to frame writing assignments as part of chemistry coursework.2-4  There is also some very elegant work on teasing out understanding of students’ perceptions of Wikipedia for organic chemistry coursework.5

Graphical abstract of M. D. Mandler, Journal of Chemical Education, 2017, 94, 271-272.
Graphical abstract of M. D. Mandler, Journal of Chemical Education, 2017, 94, 271-272.

Inspired by a meeting with our University’s Wikimedian in Residence I decided to try my hand at creating a Wikipedia article. The topic of the article was about a little-known chemist who hadn’t been written about before, and I’d say is unknown generally. I found her name listed on the Women in Red page, which is outside the scope of this post, save to say: go look at that page.

Writing the article was interesting, and some implications from a teaching perspective are listed:

  1. If there isn’t a Wikipedia article, writing a summary overview is quite a lot of work.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is of course that it offers a nice summary of the thing you are interested in, which then prompts you to go and look up other stuff which you can then pretend to have found originally. But what if there isn’t a Wikipedia article? Where do you start? Of course Googling and getting some information is part of this, but there is a step before, or at least coincident with this, which involves scoping out the content of what you want to summarise. This will involve reading enough so that you can begin this overview plan, and then searching to find information about the plan. In chemistry, the order of searching will likely go Google > Google Scholar > Databases like Web of Science etc > Google Books… Because of my context, I also got stuck into the RSC’s Historical Collection (a terribly under-promoted amazing resource). In any case, there is some good work to do here on developing information literacy (which in a formal education setting would probably need to be structured).

  1. #citethescheise

I was encouraged in writing to cite my work well, linking to original and verifiable sources. I am long enough in the game to know this, and may be known to advise novice academic writers to “referencify” their work for journals; the academic genre is one where we expect lots of superscript numbers to make a text look like it is well informed. Wikipedia has a very particular style where essentially every fact needs a citation. This is something I did reasonably well, but was very pleasantly surprised to see that someone else looked quite closely at these (new articles are reviewed by people who make amendments/changes). I know this because in my case I cited a modern J Mat Chem paper which offered an example of where the original contribution of my chemist had been cited about century later in 2016 (notability is a requirement in Wikipedia so I had this in mind). This reference had been checked, with the relevant line from it added to the citation. It was reassuring to know that someone took the time to consider the references in this amount of detail.

From a teaching point of view, we try in lab report and theses to encourage students to verify claims or opinion with data or literature. This seems like very good training for that. The point was also made to me that it teaches students to explore the veracity of what they read on Wikipedia, by considering the sources quoted.

  1. Learning to write

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia (duh) and as such it has a particular style. I actually found it very difficult to write initially and went through quite a few drafts on Word with a view to keeping my piece pretty clinical and free of personal opinion.  Asking students to write Wikipedia articles will undoubtedly improve their writing of that style; I’m not too sure yet how beneficial that is; I feel the greater benefits are in information searching and citing, and in scoping out a narrative. But that is probably a personal bias. Edit: fair point made in this tweet: https://twitter.com/lirazelf/status/865124724166320128

  1. Writing to learn

Whatever about developing writing skills, I certainly learned a lot about my subject as well as much more context about the particular topic. Quite a lot of what I read didn’t make it into the final article (as it might have, for example if I were writing an essay). But as we know from preparing lecture notes, preparing a succinct summary of something means that you have to know a lot more than the summary you are presenting.

Why Wikipedia?

In challenging the arguments about Wikipedia such as those indicated in the graphical abstract above, I do like the idea of students getting to know and understand how the site works by interacting with it. Wikipedia usage is here to stay and I do think there is a strong argument around using it in academic writing and information literacy assignments. One very nice outcome is that something real and tangibly useful is being created, and there is a sense of contributing. Writing for something that is going to go live to the world means that it isn’t “just another exercise”. And Wikipedia articles always come to the top of Google searches (mine was there less than an hour after publishing).

Search view at 16:12 (left) after publishing, and at 16:43 (right)
Search view at 16:12 (left) after publishing, and at 16:43 (right).

I’m interested now in looking at Wikipedia writing, certainly in informal learning scenarios. A particular interest is going to be exploring how it develops information literacy skills and how we structure this with students.

My page, I’m sure you are dying to know is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_May_Gostling.

Lots of useful points about Wikipedia here – see Did You Know)

With thanks to Ewan McAndrew and Anne-Marie Scott.

Referencifying 

  1. M. D. Mandler, Journal of Chemical Education, 2017, 94, 271-272.
  2. C. L. Moy, J. R. Locke, B. P. Coppola and A. J. McNeil, Journal of Chemical Education, 2010, 87, 1159-1162.
  3. E. Martineau and L. Boisvert, Journal of Chemical Education, 2011, 88, 769-771.
  4. M. A. Walker and Y. Li, Journal of Chemical Education, 2016, 93, 509-515.
  5. G. V. Shultz and Y. Li, Journal of Chemical Education, 2016, 93, 413-422.

 

Links to Back Issues of University Chemistry Education

I don’t know if I am missing something, but I have found it hard to locate past issues of University Chemistry Education, the predecessor to CERP.  They are not linked on the RSC journal page. CERP arose out of a merger between U Chem Ed and CERAPIE, and it is the CERAPIE articles that are hosted in the CERP back issues. Confused? Yes. (More on all of this here)

Anyway in searching and hunting old U Chem Ed articles, I have cracked the code of links and compiled links to back issues below. They are full of goodness. (The very last article published in UCE was the very first chemistry education paper I read – David McGarvey’s “Experimenting with Undergraduate Practicals“.)

Links to Back Issues

Contents of all issues: http://www.rsc.org/images/date_index_tcm18-7050.pdf 

1997 – Volume 1:

1 – remains elusive… It contains Johnstone’s “And some fell on good ground” so I know it is out there… Edit: cracked it – they are available by article:

1998 – Volume 2:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_2_No1_tcm18-7034.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_2_No2_tcm18-7035.pdf

1999 – Volume 3:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_3_No1_tcm18-7036.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_3_No2_tcm18-7037.pdf

2000 – Volume 4:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_4_No1_tcm18-7038.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_4_No2_tcm18-7039.pdf

2001 – Volume 5:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_5_No1_tcm18-7040.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_5_No2_tcm18-7041.pdf

2002 – Volume 6:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_6_No1_tcm18-7042.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_6_No2_tcm18-7043.pdf

2003 – Volume 7:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_7_No1_tcm18-7044.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_7_No2_tcm18-7045.pdf

2004 – Volume 8:

1 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_8_No1_tcm18-7046.pdf

2 – http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_8_No2_tcm18-7047.pdf

I’ve downloaded these all now in case of future URL changes. Yes I was a librarian in another life.

UCE logo

Revising functional groups with lightbulb feedback

I’m always a little envious when people tell me they were students of chemistry at Glasgow during Alex Johnstone’s time there. A recent read from the Education in Chemistry back-catalogue has turned me a shade greener. Let me tell you about something wonderful.

The concept of working memory is based on the notion that we can process a finite number of new bits in one instance, originally thought to be about 7, now about 4.  What these ‘bits’ are depend on what we know. So a person who only knows a little chemistry will look at a complex organic molecule and see lots of carbons, hydrogens, etc joined together. Remembering it (or even discussing its structure/reactivity) would be very difficult – there are too many bits. A more advanced learner may be able to identify functional groups, where a group is an assembly or atoms in a particular pattern; ketones for example being an assembly of three carbons and an oxygen, with particular bonding arrangements. This reduces the number of bits.

Functional groups are important for organic chemists as they will determine the reactivity of the molecule, and a challenge for novices to be able to do this is to first be able to identify the functional groups. In order to help students practise this, Johnstone developed an innovative approach (this was 1982): an electronic circuit board.

Functional Group Board: Black dots represent points were students needed to wire from name to example of functional group
Functional Group Board: Black dots represent points were students needed to wire from name to example of functional group

The board was designed so that it was covered with a piece of paper listing all functional groups of interest on either side, and then an array of molecules in the middle, with functional groups circled. Students were asked to connect a lead from the functional group name to a matching functional group, and if they were correct, a lightbulb would flash.

A lightbulb would flash. Can you imagine the joy?!

Amide backup card
Amide backup card

If not, “back-up cards” were available so that students could review any that they connected incorrectly, and were then directed back to the board.

The board was made available to students in laboratory sessions, and they were just directed to play with it in groups to stimulate discussion (and so as “not to frighten them away with yet another test”). Thus students were able to test out their knowledge, and if incorrect they had resources to review and re-test. Needless to say the board was very popular with students, such that more complex sheets were developed for medical students.

Because this is 1982 and pre-… well, everything, Johnstone offers instructions for building the board, developed with the departmental electrician. Circuit instructions for 50 x 60 cm board were given, along with details of mounting various plans of functional groups onto the pegboard for assembly. I want one!

 

Reference

A. H. Johnstone, K. M. Letton, J. C. Speakman, Recognising functional groups, Education in Chemistry, 1982, 19, 16-19. RSC members can view archives of Education in Chemistry via the Historical Collection.

What is the purpose of practical work?

I have been reading quite a lot about why we do practical work. Laboratory work is a core component of the chemistry (science) curriculum but its ubiquity means that we rarely stop to consider its purpose explicitly. This leads to many problems. An interesting quote summarises one:

One of the interesting things about laboratories is that there has never been definite consensus about those serious purposes. Perhaps that is why they have remained popular: they can be thought to support almost any aim of teaching.1

Even within institutions, where their might be some prescription of what the purpose is in broad terms, different faculty involved in the laboratory may have different emphases, and subsequently the message about what the purpose of practical work is differs depending on who is running the lab on a given day.2

This matters for various reasons. The first is that if there is confusion about the purpose of practical work, then everyone involved will place their attention onto the part that they think is most important. Academics will likely consider overarching goals, with students developing scientific skills and nature of science aspects.3 Demonstrators will think about teaching how to use instruments or complete techniques. Students will follow the money, and focus on the assessment, usually the lab report, which means their time is best utilised by getting the results as quickly as possible and getting out of the lab.4 Everybody’s priority is different because the purposes were never made clear. As in crystalline.

The second reason that thinking about purposes is that without an explicit consideration of what the purposes of practical work are, it is difficult to challenge these purposes, and consider their value. How many lab manuals open up with a line similar to: “The purpose of these practicals is to reaffirm theory taught in lectures…”? The notion that the purpose of practicals is in somehow supplementing taught material in lectures has long come in for criticism, and has little basis in evidence. Laboratories are generally quite inefficient places to “teach” theory. Woolnough and Allsop argued vehemently for cutting the “Gordian Knot” between theory and practical, arguing that practical settings offered their own unique purpose that, rather than being subservient to theory work, complemented it.5 Kirchner picks this argument up, describing science education in terms of substantive structure and syntactical structure. The former deals with the knowledge base of science, the latter with the acts of how we do science.6 Anderson had earlier distinguished between “science” and “sciencing”.

Discussion therefore needs to focus on what this syntactical structure is – what is “sciencing”? Here, the literature is vast, and often contradictory. To make a start, we look to Johnstone who, with his usual pragmatism, distinguished between aims of practical work (what we set out to do) and objectives of practical work (what the students achieve).8 With this in mind, we can begin to have some serious discussion about what we want practical work to achieve in our curricula.

Links to source
Links to source

References

  1.  White, R. T., The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education 1996, 18 (7), 761-774.
  2. Boud, D.; Dunn, J.; Hegarty-Hazel, E., Teaching in laboratories. Society for Research into Higher Education & NFER-Nelson Guildford, Surrey, UK: 1986.
  3. Bretz, S. L.; Fay, M.; Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H., What faculty interviews reveal about meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 2013, 90 (3), 281-288.
  4. (a) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H., General Chemistry Students’ Goals for Chemistry Laboratory Coursework. Journal of Chemical Education 2015, 92 (12), 2031-2037; (b) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H., Upper-level undergraduate chemistry students’ goals for their laboratory coursework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2016, 53 (8), 1198-1215.
  5. Woolnough, B. E.; Allsop, T., Practical work in science. Cambridge University Press: 1985.
  6. Kirschner, P. A., Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education 1992, 1 (3), 273-299.
  7. Anderson, R. O., The experience of science: A new perspective for laboratory teaching. Teachers College Press, Columbia University: New York, 1976.
  8. Johnstone, A. H.; Al-Shuaili, A., Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education 2001, 5 (2), 42-51.

 

Using the Columbo approach on Discussion Boards

As pat of our ongoing development of an electronic laboratory manual at Edinburgh, I decided this year to incorporate discussion boards to support students doing physical chemistry labs. It’s always a shock, and a bit upsetting, to hear students say that they spent very long periods of time on lab reports. The idea behind the discussion board was to support them as they were doing these reports, so that they could use the time they were working on them in a more focussed way.

The core aim is to avoid the horror stories of students spending 18 hours on a report, because if they are spending that time on it, much of it must be figuring out what the hell it is they are meant to be doing. Ultimately, a lab report is a presentation of some data, usually graphically, and some discussion of the calculations based on that data. That shouldn’t take that long.

Setting Up

The system set-up was easy. I had asked around and heard some good suggestions for external sites that did this well (can’t remember it now but one was suggested by colleagues in physics where questions could be up-voted). But I didn’t anticipate so many questions that I would have to answer only the most pressing, and didn’t want “another login”, and so just opted for Blackboard’s native discussion board. Each experiment got its own forum, along with a forum for general organisation issues.

Use

A postgrad demonstrator advised me to allow the posts to be made anonymously, and that seemed sensible. Nothing was being graded, and I didn’t want any reticence about asking questions. Even anonymously, some students apologised for asking what they deemed “silly” questions, but as in classroom scenarios, these were often the most insightful. Students were told to use the forum for questions, and initially, any questions by email were politely redirected to the board. In cases close to submission deadlines, I copied the essential part of the question, and pasted it to the board with a response. But once reports began to be due, the boards became actively used. I made sure in the first weekend to check in too, as this was likely going to be the time that students would be working on their reports.

The boards were extensively used. About 60 of our third years do phys chem labs at a time, and they viewed the boards over 5500 times in a 6 week period. Half of these views were on a new kinetics experiment, which tells me as organiser that I need to review that. For second years, they have just begun labs, and already in a two week period, 140 2nd years viewed the board 2500 times. The number of posts of course is nowhere near this, suggesting that most views are “lurkers”, and probably most queries are common. Since students can post anonymously, I have no data on what proportion of students were viewing the boards. Perhaps it is one person going in lots, but given the widespread viewership across all experiments, my guess is it isn’t. The boards were also accessible to demonstrators (who correct all the reports), but I’ve no idea if they looked at them.

Reception

The reception from students has been glowing, so much so that it is the surprise “win” of the semester. (Hey, look over here at all these videos I made… No? Okay then!) Students have reported at school council, staff student liaison committees, anecdotally to me and other staff that they really like and appreciate the boards. Which of course prompts introspection.

Why do they like them? One could say that of course students will like them, I’m telling them the answer. And indeed, in many cases, I am. The boards were set up to provide clear guidance on what is needed and expected in lab reports. So if I am asked questions, of course I provide clear guidance. That mightn’t always be the answer, but it will certainly be a very clear direction to students on what they should do. But in working through questions and answers, I stumbled across an additional aspect.

One more thing

Me, when asked an electrochemistry question
Me, when asked an electrochemistry question

Everyone’s favourite detective was famous for saying: “oh: just one more thing“. I’ve found in the lab that students are very keen and eager to know what purpose their experiment has in the bigger context, where it might be used in research, something of interest in it beyond the satisfaction of proving, once again, some fundamental physical constant. And in honesty, it is a failing on our part and in the “traditional” approach that we don’t use this opportunity to inspire. So sometimes in responding to questions, I would add in additional components to think about – one more thing – something to further challenge student thought, or to demonstrate where the associated theory or technique in some experiment we were doing is used in research elsewhere. My high point was when I came across an experiment that used exactly our technique and experiment, published in RSC Advances this year. This then sparked the idea of how we can develop these labs more, the subject of another post.

Again I have no idea if students liked this or followed up these leads. But it did ease my guilt a little that I might not be just offering a silver spoon. It’s a hard balance to strike, but I am certainly going to continue with discussion boards for labs while I work it out.

A tour around Johnstone’s Triangle

In a small laboratory off the M25, is a man named Bob. And Bob is a genius at designing and completing reactions on a very small scale. Bob is greatly helped by Dr Kay Stephenson, Mary Owen and Emma Warwick.

I was invited to go down to CLEAPPS to see Bob in action, and try out for myself some of the microscale chemistry he has been developing. I was interested to see it because of a general interest in laboratory expriments and how we can expand our repertoire. But I found out a lot more than just smaller versions of laboratory experiments.

Safety and cost considerations first piqued Bob’s interest in microscale. The traditional laboratory Hofmann voltmeter costs about £250, but the microscale version, including ingenious three way taps to syringe out the separated gases costs about £50. Thoughts about how to do a reduction of copper oxide safely led him to use a procedure that avoided traditional problems with explosions. There’s also a very neat version using iron oxide, incorporating the use of a magnet to show that iron forms.

Electrochemical production of leading to subsequent production of iodine and bromine. Copper crystals form on the electrode.
Electrochemical production of chlorine leading to subsequent production of iodine and bromine. Copper crystals form on the electrode.

Bob promised to show me 93 demonstrations in a morning (“scaled back from 94!”) and I worried on my way there that I would have to put on my polite smile after a while. But actually time flew, and as we worked through the (less than 93) experiments, I noticed something very obvious. This isn’t just about safety and cost. It has deep grounding in the scholarship of teaching and learning too.

Cognitive Load

What I remember from the session is not the apparatus, but the chemistry. Practical chemistry is difficult because we have to worry about setting up apparatus and this can act as a distraction to the chemistry involved. However, the minimal and often absence of apparatus meant that we were just doing and observing chemistry. This particularly struck me when we were looking at conductivity measurements, using a simple meter made with carbon fibre rods (from a kite shop). This, along with several other experiments, used an ingenious idea of instruction sheets within polypropylene pockets (Bob has thought a lot about contact angles). The reaction beaker becomes a drop of water, and it is possible to explore some lovely chemistry: pH indicator colours, conductivity, precipitation reactions, producing paramagnetic compounds, all in this way. It’s not all introductory chemistry; we discussed a possible experiment for my third year physical chemists and there is lots to do for a general chemistry first year lab, including a fabulously simple colourimeter.

Designing a universal indicator.
Designing a universal indicator.

Johnstone’s Triangle

One of the reasons chemistry is difficult to learn is because we have multiple ways of representing it. We can describe things as we view them: the macroscopic scale – a white precipitate forms when we precipitate out chloride ions with silver ions. We can describe things at the atomic scale, describing the ionic movement leading the above precipitation. And we can use symbolism, for example representing the ions in a diagram, or talking about the solubility product equation.  When students learn chemistry, moving between these “domains” is an acknowledged difficulty. These three domains were described by Alex Johnstone, and we now describe this as Johnstone’s triangle.

Johnstone's triangle (from U. Iowa Chemistry)
Johnstone’s triangle (from U. Iowa Chemistry)

One of my observations from the many experiments I carried out with Bob was that we can begin to see these reactions happening. The precipitation reactions took place over about 30 seconds as the ions from a salt at each side migrated through the droplet. Conductivity was introduced into the assumed unionised water droplet by shoving in a grain or two of salt. We are beginning to jump across representations visually. Therefore what has me excited about these techniques is not just laboratory work, but activities to stimulate student chatter about what they are observing and why. The beauty of the plastic sheets is that they can just be wiped off quickly with a paper towel before continuing on.

Reaction of ammonia gas (Centre) with several solutions including HCl with universal indicator (top right) and copper chloride (bottom right)
Reaction of ammonia gas (centre) with several solutions including HCl with universal indicator (top right) and copper chloride (bottom right)

Bob knew I was a schoolboy chemist at heart. “Put down that book on phenomenology” I’m sure I heard him say, before he let me pop a flame with hydrogen and reignite it with oxygen produced from his modified electrolysis apparatus (I mean who doesn’t want to do this?!). I left the room fist-bumping the air after a finale of firing my own rocket, coupled with a lesson in non-Newtonian liquids. And lots of ideas to try. And a mug.

I want a CLEAPPS set to be developed in time for Christmas. In the mean time, you can find lots of useful materials at: http://science.cleapss.org.uk/.

#ViCEPHEC16 – curly arrows and labs

The annual Variety in Chemistry Education/Physics Higher Education conference was on this week in Southampton. Some notes and thoughts are below.

Curly arrows

Physicists learned a lot about curly arrows at this conference. Nick Greeves‘ opening keynote spoke about the development of ChemTube3D – a stunning achievement – over 1000 HTML pages, mostly developed by UG students. News for those who know the site are that 3D curly arrow mechanisms are now part of the reaction mechanism visualisations, really beautiful visualisation of changing orbitals as a reaction proceeds for 30+ reactions, lovely visualisations of MOFs, direct links to/from various textbooks, and an app at the prototype stage. Nick explained that this has all been developed with small amounts of money from various agencies, including the HEA Physical Sciences Centre.

Mike Casey from UCD spoke about a resource at a much earlier stage of development; an interactive mechanism tutor. Students can choose a reaction type and then answer the question by drawing the mechanism – based on their answer they receive feedback. Version 2 is on the way with improved feedback, but I wondered if this feedback might include a link to the appropriate place in Chemtube3D, so that students could watch the associated visualisation as part of the feedback.

In the same session Robert Campbell spoke about his research on how A-level students answer organic chemistry questions. My understanding is that students tend to use rules of mechanisms (e.g. primary alkyl halides means it’s always SN2) without understanding the reason why; hence promoting rote learning. In a nice project situated in the context of cognitive load theory, Rob used Livescribe technology to investigate students reasoning. Looking forward to seeing this research in print.

Rob’s future work alluded to considering the video worked answers described by Stephen Barnes, also for A-level students. These demonstrated a simple but clever approach; using questions resembling A-level standard, asking students to complete them, providing video worked examples so students could self-assess, and then getting them to reflect on how they can improve. David Read mentioned that this model aligned with the work of Sadler, worth a read.

Laboratory work

Selfishly, I was really happy to see lots of talks about labs on the programme. Ian Bearden was the physics keynote, and he spoke about opening the laboratory course – meaning the removal of prescriptive and allowing students to develop their own procedures. Moving away from pure recipe is of course music to this audience’s ears and the talk was very well received. But you can’t please everyone – I would have loved to hear much more about what was done and the data involved, rather than the opening half of the talk about the rationale for doing so. A short discussion prompted this tweet from Felix Janeway, something we can agree on! But I will definitely be exploring this work more. Ian also mentioned that this approach is also part of physics modules taught to trainee teachers, which sounded a very good idea.

Jennifer Evans spoke about the prevalence of pre-labs in UK institutions following on from the Carnduff and Reid study in 2003. Surprisingly many don’t have any form of pre-lab work. It will be interesting to get a sense of what pre-lab work involves – is it theory or practice? Theory and practice were mentioned in a study from Oxford presented by Ruiqi Yu, an undergraduate student. This showed mixed messages on the purpose of practical work, surely something the academy need to agree on once and for all. There was also quite a nice poster from Oxford involving a simulation designed to teach experimental design, accessible at this link. This was also built by an undergraduate student. Cate Cropper from Liverpool gave a really useful talk on tablets in labs – exploring the nitty gritty of how they might work. Finally on labs, Jenny Slaughter gave an overview of the Bristol ChemLabs, which is neatly summarised in this EiC article, although the link to the HEA document has broken.

Other bites

  • Gwen Lawrie (via Skype) and Glenn Hurst spoke about professional development; Gwen mentioned this site she has developed with Madeline Schultz and others to inform lecturers about PCK. Glenn spoke about a lovely project on training PhD students for laboratory teaching – details here.  This reminds me of Barry Ryan‘s work at DIT.
  • Kristy Turner gave an overview of the School Teacher Fellow model at Manchester, allowing her to work both at school and university with obvious benefits for both. Kristy looked forward to an army of Kristy’s, which would indeed be formidable, albeit quite scary. Even without that, the conference undoubtedly benefits from the presence of school teachers, as Rob’s talk, mentioned above, demonstrates.
  • Rachel Koramoah gave a really great workshop on qualitative data analysis. Proving the interest in chemistry education research, this workshop filled up quickly. The post-it note method was demonstrated, which was interesting and will certainly explore more, but I hope to tease out a bit more detail on the data reduction step. This is the benefit of this model – the participants reduce the data for you – but I worry that this might in turn lead to loss of valuable data.
  • Matthew Mears gave a great byte on the value of explicit signposting to textbooks using the R-D-L approach: Read (assign a reading); Do (Assign questions to try); Learn (assign questions to confirm understanding). Matt said setting it up takes about 30 minutes and he has seen marked improvements in student performance in comparison to other sections of the course.
  • David Nutt won the best poster prize. His poster showed the results of eye-tracking experiments to demonstrate the value or not of an in-screen presenter. Very interesting results which I look forward to seeing in print.

The conference organisation was brilliant and thanks to Paul Duckmanton and Charles (Minion) Harrison for leading the organisation. Lots of happy but tired punters left on Friday afternoon.

I couldn’t attend everything, and other perspectives on the meeting with links etc can be found at links below. From Twitter, Barry Ryan’s presenation on NearPod seemed popular, along with the continuing amazingness of my colleagues in the Edinburgh Physics Education Research Group. One of their talks, by Anna Wood, is available online.

Getting ready to badge and looking for interested partners

Over the summer we have been working on a lab skills badging project. Lots of detail is on the project home site, but briefly this is what it’s about:

  • Experimental skills are a crucial component of student laboratory learning, but we rarely assess them, or even check them, formally. For schools, there is a requirement to show that students are doing practical work.
  • By implementing a system whereby students review particular lab techniques in advance of labs, demonstrate them to a peer while being videod, reviews the technique with a peer using a checklist, and uploads the video for assessment, we intend that students will be able to learn and perform the technique to a high standard.
  • The video can form part of students electronic portfolio that they may wish to share in future (See this article for more on that).
  • The process is suitable for digital badging – awarding of an electronic badge acknowledging competency in a particular skill (think scout badges for… tying knots…).

Marcy Towns has a nice paper on this for pipetting and we are going to trial it for this and some other lab techniques.

Looking for interested parties to trial it out

I am looking for school teachers who would like to try this method out. It can be used to document any lab technique or procedure you like. You don’t necessarily need an exemplar video, but a core requirement is that you want to document students laboratory work formally, and acknowledge achievement in this work by a digital badge. We will provide the means to offer the badge, and exemplar videos if you need them, assuming they are within our stock. Interested teachers will be responsible for local implementation and assessment of quality (i.e. making the call on whether a badge is issued).

Yes I need help with badge design
Yes I need help with badge design

This will be part of a larger project and there will be some research on the value and impact of the digital badges, drawing from implementation case studies. This will be discussed with individuals, depending on their own local circumstances.

So if you are interested, let’s badge! You can contact me at: michael.seery@ed.ac.uk to follow up.

What is the “education literature”?

Over on the Education in Chemistry blog, Paul MacLellan wrote an excellent article on reasons teachers don’t engage with education research, which is well worth a read. Speaking a few years ago, I used analogy of a paddle boat steamer when talking about the penetration of education research in HE. The paddles throw up some splashes as it sails over the vast quantity of water below. These splashes were meant to represent how many engage with research – taking on what they hear on the grapevine, Twitter, or CPD. It isn’t systematic.

I’ve spent a lot of time wondering about whether I should expect my colleagues to read education research, and on balance, I don’t think I should. The reason stems from the argument made about different audiences by Keith Taber in MacLellan’s article, and quantified by the featured commenter under his post. And I think we need some clarity about what we mean by education research literature.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary literature

New research in any field is iterative. We know a certain amount, and someone does some research to add a little more to our understanding. In publishing these research findings, we tend to summarise what was known before to situate the work in context, and add on the new bit. As Taber points out, education has the unique position of aiming to address two audiences: like any field it is addressing other education researchers in that field; but also has a second audience; practitioners who may wish to change some aspect of their teaching, and are looking for “what works”. The trouble with the mixed audience is that the language and semantics for each are very different, leaving the practitioner feeling very frustrated. The featured comment under MacLellan’s blog documents this very well. The practitioner looking to improve faces the difficult challenge: they use some search engine with decent keywords and have to try to pick out some paper that will offer them nuggets. It really is a needle in a haystack, (or a splash of water from the river boat…).

If asked for advice, I think I would rather suggest that such practitioners would instead refer to secondary or tertiary literature. Secondary literature aims to summarise the research findings in a particular field. While it is still written with an audience of researchers from the field in mind, these reviews typically group the results from several individual studies into themes or overarching concepts, which can be useful to practitioners who may wish to see “what might work” in their own context. I recall the value of MacArthur and Jones’ review on clickers, and my own review of flipping lectures in chemistry are examples of this type.

The audience shifts more fully when we move to tertiary literature. While there is still likely two audiences for education research, the emphasis with tertiary literature is addressing a wider audience; introducing the field to a wider audience of interested readers. Typically books summarising teaching approaches are grounded in well documented research, but unlike secondary sources, they are written for those wishing to find out about the topic from an introductory level, and the language is considerate of the wider audience. Think of Taber’s books on misconceptions, and the impact they have had. More recently, the web has offered us new forms of tertiary literature – blogs are becoming more popular to disseminate the usefulness of research to a wider audience and summaries such that recently published by Tina Overton on factors to consider in teaching approaches can help introduce overarching research findings, without having to penetrate the original education research studies.

So should my colleagues read education research? I still don’t think so. A tourist to a new city wouldn’t read academic articles on transport infrastructure and architecture – they would just read the tourist guide. Of course it can be inspiring to read a case study or see what students in an individual situation experienced. But I would rather recommend secondary and tertiary sources to them if they are going to spend any valuable time reading.

And that means, in chemistry education’s case, we need a lot more of these types of publications. A recent J Chem Ed editorial suggested that they are thinking about promoting this type of publication, and any movement in that direction is welcome.

Planning a new book on laboratory education

Contracts have been signed so I am happy to say that I am writing a book on chemistry laboratory education as part of the RSC’s new Advances in Chemistry Education series due for publication mid 2017.

I’ve long had an interest in lab education, since stumbling across David McGarvey’s “Experimenting with Undergraduate Practicals” in University Chemistry Education (now CERP). Soon after, I met Stuart Bennett, now retired, from Open University at a European summer school. Stuart spoke about lab education and its potential affordances in the curriculum. He was an enormous influence on my thinking in chemistry education, and in practical work in particular. We’d later co-author a chapter on lab education for a book for new lecturers in chemistry published by the RSC (itself a good example on the benefits of European collaboration). My first piece of published education research was based on laboratory work; a report in CERP on the implementation of mini-projects in chemistry curriculum, completed with good friends and colleagues Claire Mc Donnell and Christine O’Connor. So I’ve been thinking about laboratory work for a long time.

Why a book?

A question I will likely be asking with increasing despair over the coming months is: why am I writing a book? To reaffirm to myself as much as anything else, and to remind me if I get lost on the way, the reasons are pretty straightforward.

My career decisions and personal interests over the last few years have meant that I have moved my focus entirely to chemistry education. Initially this involved sneaking in some reading between the covers of J. Mat. Chem. when I was meant to be catching up on metal oxide photocatalysis. But as time went on and thanks to the support of others involved in chemistry education, this interest became stronger. I eventually decided to make a break with chemistry and move into chemistry education research. (One of the nicest things for me personally about joining Edinburgh was that this interest was ultimately validated.)

So while my knowledge of latest chemistry research is limited mainly to Chemistry World reports, one thing I do know well is the chemistry education research literature. And there is a lot of literature on laboratory education. But as I read it and try to keep on top of it, it is apparent that much of the literature on laboratory education falls into themes, and by a bit of rethinking of these themes and by taking a curriculum design approach, some guiding principles for laboratory education can be drawn up. And that a compilation of such principles, within the context of offering a roadmap or plan for laboratory education might be useful to others.

And this is what I hope to offer. The book will be purposefully targeted at anyone responsible for taking a traditional university level chemistry laboratory course and looking to change it. In reality, such change is an enormous task, and being pragmatic, needs to happen in phases. It’s tempting then to tweak bits and change bits based on some innovation presented at a conference or seen in a paper. But there needs to be an overall design for the entire student experience, so that incremental changes sum up to an overall consistent whole piece. Furthermore, by offering a roadmap or overall design, I hope to empower members of staff who may be responsible for such change by giving the evidence they may need to rationalise changes to colleagues. Everyone has an opinion on laboratory education! The aim is to provide evidence-based design approaches.

My bookshelves are groaning with excellent books on laboratory education. I first came across Teaching in Laboratories by Boud Dunn and Hegarty-Hazel back in the days when I stumbled across McGarvey’s article. I still refer to it, as even though it was published in 1986, it still carries a lot of useful material. Woolnough and Allsop’s Practical Work in Science is also excellent; crystal clear on the role and value of laboratory education and its distinction from lecture based curriculum. Hegarty-Hazel also edited The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. Roger Anderson’s book The Experience of Science was published before I was born.

I have bought these now out of print books and several more second hand for less than the cost of a cup of coffee. I have learned lots from them, but am mindful that (justifiably) well-known and comprehensive as they are, they are now out of print and our university laboratories have not seen much change in the forty years since Anderson.

I am very conscious of this as I structure my own book. I can speculate that books about science laboratories at both secondary and tertiary level may be too broad. So the book is focussing exclusively on chemistry and higher education.

Secondly, the book is very clearly directed at those implementing a new approach, those involved in change. Ultimately it is their drive and energy and input that decides the direction of changes that will occur.  I hope that by speaking directly to them with a clear rationale and approach based on an up-to-date literature, that it may ease the workload somewhat for those looking to rethink laboratory education in their curricula. Now I just need to actually write it.

Alex Johnstone’s 10 Educational Commandments

My thanks to Prof Tina Overton for alerting me to the fact that these exist. I subsequently happened across them in this article detailing an interview with Prof Johnstone (1), and thought they would be useful to share.

Ten Educational Commandments 

1. What is learned is controlled by what you already know and understand.

2. How you learn is controlled by how you learned in the past (related to learning style but also to your interpretation of the “rules”).

3. If learning is to be meaningful, it has to link on to existing knowledge and skills, enriching both (2).

4. The amount of material to be processed in unit time is limited (3).

5. Feedback and reassurance are necessary for comfortable learning, and assessment should be humane.

6. Cognisance should be taken of learning styles and motivation.

7. Students should consolidate their learning by asking themselves about what goes on in their own heads— metacognition.

8. There should be room for problem solving in its fullest sense (4).

9. There should be room to create, defend, try out, hypothesise.

10. There should be opportunity given to teach (you don’t really learn until you teach) (5).

Johnstone told his interviewer that he didn’t claim any originality for the statements, which his students called the 10 educational commandments. Rather he merely brought together well known ideas from the literature. But, and importantly for this fan, Johnstone said that they have been built into his own research and practice, using them as “stars to steer by”.

References

  1. Cardellini, L, J. Chem. Educ., 2000, 77, 12, 1571.
  2. Johnstone, A. H. Chemical Education Research and Practice in Europe (CERAPIE) 2000, 1, 9–15; online at http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/2000_January/contents.html.
  3. Johnstone, A. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 701–705
  4. Johnstone, A. H. In Creative Problem Solving in Chemistry; Wood, C. A., Ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 1993.
  5. Sirhan, G.; Gray, C.; Johnstone, A. H.; Reid, N. Univ. Chem. Educ. 1999, 3, 43–46.

ChemEd Journal Publications from UK since 2015

I’ve compiled this list for another purpose and thought it might be useful to share here. 

The following are publications I can find* from UK corresponding authors on chemistry education research, practice, and laboratory work relevant to HE since beginning of 2015.  There are lots of interesting finds and useful articles. Most are laboratory experiments and activities, Some refer to teaching practice or underlying principles.

I don’t imagine this is a fully comprehensive list, so do let me know what’s missing. It’s in approximate chronological order from beginning of 2015.

  1. Surrey (Lygo-Baker): Teaching polymer chemistry
  2. Reading (Strohfeldt): PBL medicinal chemistry practical
  3. Astra Zeneca and Huddersfield (Hill and Sweeney): A flow chart for reaction work up
  4. Bath (Chew): Lab experiment: coffee grounds to biodiesel
  5. Nottingham (Galloway): PeerWise for revision
  6. Hertfordshire (Fergus): Context examples of recreational drugs for spectroscopy and introductory organic chemistry 
  7. Overton (was Hull): Dynamic problem based learning
  8. Durham (Hurst, now at York): Lab Experiment: Rheology of PVA gels
  9. Reading (Cranwell): Lab experiment: Songoshira reaction
  10. Edinburgh (Seery): Flipped chemistry trial
  11. Oaklands (Smith): Synthesis of fullerenes from graphite
  12. Manchester (O’Malley): Virtual labs for physical chemistry MOOC  
  13. Edinburgh (Seery): Review of flipped lectures in HE chemistry
  14. Manchester (Wong): Lab experiment: Paterno-Buchi and kinetics
  15. Southampton (Coles): Electronic lab notebooks in upper level undergraduate lab
  16. UCL (Tomaszewski): Information literacy, searching
  17. St Andrews & Glasgow (Smellie): Lab experiment: Solvent extraction of copper
  18. Imperial (Rzepa): Lab experiment: Assymetric epoxidation in the lab and molecular modelling; electronic lab notebooks
  19. Reading (Cranwell): Lab experiment: Wolff Kishner reaction
  20. Imperial (Rzepa): Using crystal structure databases
  21. Leeds (Mistry): Inquiry based organic lab in first year – students design work up
  22. Manchester (Turner): Molecular modelling activity
  23. Imperial (Haslam & Brechtelsbauer): Lab experiment: vapour pressure with an isosteniscope
  24. Imperial (Parkes): Making a battery from household products
  25. Durham (Bruce and Robson): A corpus for writing chemistry
  26. Who will it be…?!

*For those interested, the Web of Science search details are reproduced below. Results were filtered to remove non-UK papers, conference proceedings and editorials.

ADDRESS:((united kingdom OR UK OR Scotland OR Wales OR England OR (Northern Ireland))) AND TOPIC: (chemistry)AND YEAR PUBLISHED: (2016 or 2015)

Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: ( EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH OR EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES )
Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC.