Download pdf - From crazy chemists to engaged learners through education.pdf

NATURE CHEMISTRY | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2011 | www.nature.com/naturechemistry 681

INSIGHT | COMMENTARY

From crazy chemists to engaged learners through educationDavid K. Smith

As well as teaching students what we know, it is becoming increasingly important to teach them how we think. We must take a scientific approach to science education and experiment with teaching methods, including context-led work and media-rich resources, to foster active and independent student engagement.

A recent anti-drugs campaign in the United Kingdom introduced a sinister new character to the general

public — the ‘crazy chemist’. Intent on selling ‘dangerous chemicals’ to young people, this bald-headed man, with an evil look in his eye, was used to warn 18–24 year-olds away from the dangers of newly emerging ‘legal highs’1.

Clearly, chemistry — and chemists — have an image problem. About fifteen years ago, in an influential survey carried out by the Royal Society of Chemistry, primary school teachers reflected the attitudes of the general public when they described chemistry as “a difficult and boring subject pursued by intelligent but unimaginative people”2. And although much has changed since then, a negative impression of chemistry is clearly still embedded in the public psyche. How can we teach chemistry to students so that they move away from this perception that chemistry is inherently bad? Employing the very best approaches to engaging students with chemical education lies at the heart of solving this problem.

In science education, there is sometimes perceived to be a tension between two groups of school students. The first group is composed of those who will go on to become scientists — perhaps even chemists — and the second (often larger) one contains those who will not. Many professional scientists argue that the first group of students requires a conceptual approach to scientific knowledge, in the form of rigorous facts and principles, such as thermodynamics or organic mechanisms, often taught in an abstract manner. As such, much of science education has traditionally been delivered in this way. It is perhaps surprising that scientists, who inherently believe in experimentation and progress, are really quite conservative when it comes to applying a scientific approach to education itself, and are often reluctant to

engage in change that may lead to profound improvements in educational outcomes3,4.

Against this background, it has increasingly become clear that the second group of ‘non-scientific’ students finds the traditional approach to chemical education difficult and/or uninspiring, struggling to understand the relevance of conceptual chemistry. Such students ideally need to develop scientific (or chemical) literacy, allowing them to understand the world they live in, and engage in a meaningful way with scientific developments that will have impacts on their lives5,6. Can both groups of students be engaged in schools without compromising on education?

From information to interpretationIn recent years, there has therefore been intense interest in, and development of, context-led approaches to chemical education in schools7–9. Rather than focusing on teaching conceptual chemistry, a context-led approach relies on engaging students’ natural curiosity to understand the world around them, and leads them to solve real-world problems by exploring the underlying chemistry10. Thermodynamics, for example, can be taught in the context of space flight or the energy present in food, and organic chemistry may be taught through a need to understand the synthesis and behaviour of drug molecules. There is clear evidence that such an approach can improve student engagement and attitudes to chemistry11,12, as well as enhancing student performance and depth of learning13,14.

The context-led approach, however, often covers a smaller syllabus base, rewarding higher-level tasks such as interpretation and

analysis rather than breadth of conceptual coverage. As such, even though these

approaches are now very well embedded in schools in a

number of countries, there remains considerable

suspicion amongst some professional chemists that the context-led teaching methods somehow encourages ‘dumbing-down’, and that the group

of students composed of future scientists

will be ill-served by the perceived absence of

factual knowledge15,16.In my view, it is essential that

we should be very clear as scientists about what we want to teach our students — as others have asked17, do we want our students to know what we know, or do we want them to understand how we think? Increasingly, the internet age is having a dramatic effect on the requirements of science education. One of the rate-limiting steps in being a scientist used to be the retrieval of information. As a graduate student, I remember day-long hunts through convoluted library indexes looking for obscure compounds and reactions. This was a time-consuming process, and as such, there was a significant advantage of having the knowledge available in my head, for easy recall. Put simply, chemists who knew more stuff could get on much more quickly. However, with the internet, typing a query into the right search engine will now return information almost effortlessly — is it really worthwhile committing all of this knowledge to memory?

© 2

010

CRO

WN

CO

PYRI

GH

T

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

682 NATURE CHEMISTRY | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2011 | www.nature.com/naturechemistry

COMMENTARY | INSIGHT

Of course a foundation of sound knowledge is crucial, but perhaps the bigger challenges facing the modern chemist are to appreciate the true value of the available information, develop the skills to interpret it sensibly, gain the capability to make creative connections between data from different sources, and to be able to spot the needles in the ever-expanding information haystack. In essence, in the internet age, the premium is shifting from information and facts (knowledge) to interpretation and creativity (cognitive skills). Indeed, the most successful research chemists must win grants, publish papers and have patents awarded based on their ability to innovate or to form coherent new theories from disparate facts.

How can we best prepare students to achieve these goals? Does a traditional knowledge-based education system, in which the primary goal is to impart facts to the students, really educate scientists for careers in the modern world?

As important as what we choose to teach our students is whether we teach them to become active and independent learners, taking responsibility for their own progress rather than relying on an instructor to always tell them what is right or wrong. Chemistry taught in a real-world context provides excellent opportunities for active learning, project work, group exercises and innovative modes of assessment. All of these approaches allow students to actively engage in their own education — a process that is known to give rise to deeper learning18–22. In fact, from my own, very traditional, physics education in school, the one thing that sticks in my mind was a two-day team competition within our class in which we had to present competing proposals to develop and design a communication network linking London and Amsterdam. Arguably, I learnt more skills and physics from this game than through any of my ‘chalk and talk’ learning experiences in the subject.

In the light of these considerations, I feel that as well as knowing some chemistry, we

want our students to know how to think. Using embedded context to give a deeper appreciation of chemistry and combining this with active learning strategies can only empower our students with a greater creativity — surely the characteristic we prize most in scientists. As such, I would argue that context-based teaching is beneficial, not only to those students in schools who will never work in science, but also to those who will be the scientists of the future. University educators should seriously consider embedding context, as well as merely concept, into their teaching. This can transform the student learning experience and encourage much greater levels of engagement with the taught material. Indeed, from my own university-based teaching practice, where I have embedded context into courses designed to teach fundamental principles of organic chemistry reactions and mechanisms, students have responded with great enthusiasm, making numerous comments such as: “You actually try to apply the science we learn to real world topics. So thank you” (anonymous undergraduate student survey, University of York).

Talking about scienceSuch a real-world approach for students might also help to change the image of chemistry to a greater extent. In general, the mainstream media struggles with science — perhaps reflected by the fact that in UK-wide surveys, almost half of respondents consider themselves poorly informed about science23. The poor media coverage of science may be a consequence of the majority of journalists and TV performers coming from arts and social science backgrounds — indeed, even serious national newspapers often employ only one or two journalists with any kind of scientific background. The biggest single media problem faced by the chemistry community, however, can be summed up in a single word — ‘chemical’. If you search any major online news outlet for this word, you will

invariably find a predominance of chemical ‘leaks’, ‘poisonings’, ‘incidents’ and ‘pollution’. Only very rarely would a new drug be described as a chemical, and hardly ever would the clever chemicals vital for making your iPhone work be acknowledged.

Although physics and biology have been well served by television shows presenting the wider population with the marvels of the natural world, or the wonders of the universe, chemistry has been largely ignored24. This is in spite of the fact that chemistry is fundamental to life as we experience it — the way food and drink taste, how drugs cure us, the changing climate and the novel materials that enable architects to design and build amazing structures. I wish that the broader population saw the world like chemists do. By seeing that everything contains atoms, and by understanding them and the way they combine into molecules, which interact with one another and their surroundings, it is possible to gain a unique understanding of the world, and learn how to best manipulate it. Furthermore, chemistry is a uniquely creative scientific discipline — chemical synthesis allows us to make some things that are completely new, or to change and improve other ones. It is certainly not a subject for the unimaginative — indeed, to be a really successful synthetic chemist, a spark of creative genius is required.

Interestingly, the wider population looks at the world around them, and they are interested in chemistry — but unfortunately, they don’t often recognise it as such. In a 2008 UK survey23, the results of which were also reflected in a Europe-wide study25, 94% of the population were interested in learning about health, 89% about medical discoveries and environmental issues, 79% wanted to know about new technologies and 77% about new scientific discoveries. Yet only 67% were interested in current affairs, 62% in sport, and 60% in UK politics — all of which fill our media. These figures are quite remarkable, and indicate a latent desire amongst the wider population to know more about science. Yet, a majority of respondents to the survey also agreed with the statement that science is “too specialised for most people to understand”. So how can we inspire the wider population with the wonders of science in general, and get them to engage with chemistry in particular?

The wider population are interested in chemistry, but they don’t often recognise it as such.

© L

TO

R: 2

012

MCG

RAW

-HIL

L; 2

000

NEL

SON

TH

ORN

ES; 2

006

CORN

ELSE

N


NATURE CHEMISTRY | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2011 | www.nature.com/naturechemistry 683

INSIGHT | COMMENTARY

Science education, discussed above, and communication are two sides of this coin.

Intervention through better science education, such as the contextual approach advocated above, is by far the best way to improve engagement with, and the image of, chemistry in the wider population in the long term. However, this does not mean that scientists should wash their hands of the issue, and assume that teachers will do all the hard work. Research has demonstrated that educational interventions made by practising scientists with schoolchildren are of huge value26. Furthermore, such interventions with the general public can also have a great influence. Practising chemists therefore have a vital role to play in the communication of science. It has been proposed that the secret to effective science communication and engagement lies in a five-fold approach defined by the vowels — AEIOU (awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-forming and understanding)27. By remembering that each of these outcomes is equally important for the audience, scientists can create high-quality and effective public-engagement activities.

The traditional way of engaging non-scientists with the marvels of chemistry has been to carry out spectacular experiments — with explosions featuring heavily. There is no doubt that such experiments have real value in promoting the power of chemistry and providing a thrilling spectacle. However, in my opinion and that of others28, chemists as a community need to think hard about whether this is the best approach to engagement. Do such experiments make chemistry seem approachable, or even safe? Or do they instead encourage the audience to marvel at the powers of those ‘crazy chemists’ who can control the inherent risks? What does an audience take away from such an experience? Do they gain the perception that chemistry is everywhere around them and of huge potential benefit to their lives?

Undoubtedly, the demonstration lecture will survive well into the future and continue to inspire a certain type of chemist, but I believe it is essential that we continue to develop truly engaging lectures, which should still include demonstrations and lively audience participation, but in which chemistry is clearly placed within a societal context — the chemistry underlying medicine, forensics, the environment and so on. Lectures such as these can stimulate the audience to engage with chemistry in an entirely different way to ‘flash/bang’ lectures, allowing them to take away an understanding of the true impact of chemistry on everyday life. Indeed, it is within this context that my own lecture on medicinal chemistry has had significant

impact29. From my experience, working with school students can be highly stimulating and influential — not only for them, hopefully, but also for my own practice as a researcher. Questions raised by students after my talks have opened up whole new research areas — in fact, one of the questions asked by a student about how we can stimulate DNA release from our synthetic gene delivery vehicles remains one of the biggest problems we are trying to solve in our research30,31.

ITube, YouTube, WeTube, ChemTubeAs described above, science communication and public education has traditionally involved scientists going out and speaking to groups of students or members of the general public in outreach lectures, or at science fairs or cafes. However, in the same way that education is changing in the internet age, so are the ways in which scientists can engage with the world — students and otherwise — beyond the laboratory walls. As a result, a number of chemistry educators have begun to exploit social media sites, such as YouTube. In this way, the traditional non-scientific gateholders who control access to the media, such as the TV companies and newspapers, can be by-passed. This enables the ‘bottom-up’ creation of a new science-rich media.

At its simplest level, YouTube material can consist of lectures, or tutorial-style teaching, placed online to support students’ learning, help their understanding of challenging concepts, and allow them to watch worked examples being solved. However, the power of science new-media also extends far beyond the ability to teach and support university-level chemistry

students. For example, Periodic Videos have done a wonderful job of creating an online video database version of the periodic table32. Their combination of spectacular experiments and the musings of their very own ‘mad professor’, Martyn Poliakoff from Nottingham University, makes for compulsive viewing and has generated a cult audience that extends into the general population.

My own approach to YouTube (ProfessorDaveatYork) is somewhat different33. As a way of engaging our own undergraduate students with the contextual relevance of what they were learning in class, I initially made a series of support videos outlining the organic chemistry inherent in everyday things, such as a gin and tonic, a Friday night curry, or a glass of coca-cola. I then went on to explore the chemistry of topical issues, like newly emerging drugs such as mephedrone, debunking some of the myths and providing reliable chemical information. These videos have gone on to engage a worldwide audience, receiving hundreds of thousands of views and generating hundreds of comments.

These approaches can have a significant impact on people’s understanding of science and public health issues. This is reflected by user comments such as: “brilliantly explained and far more informative than anything… in the printed press”34. With these approaches, we can talk directly to students and the public, and hopefully move beyond the influence of the government-inspired ‘crazy chemist’ anti-drug campaign. As one viewer puts it, “Excellent information, and far better a deterrent than any ban, facts rather than press-driven hysteria and idiot politicians ignoring science and reacting to catch votes”34.


684 NATURE CHEMISTRY | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2011 | www.nature.com/naturechemistry

COMMENTARY | INSIGHT

In medicine, there has been considerable interest in determining whether the wide range of videos posted on YouTube constitute useful and educational public-health information or not. It turns out that in some cases they are accurate35, whereas in others there can be significant misinformation36. Only by scientists taking an active stake in video media, making their own videos and responding to scientific misinformation, will we ensure that quality material is available for students and the public worldwide to engage with — which they are doing in huge numbers. This is therefore a great way of demonstrating to many people the amazing things chemistry can do, as well as encouraging them to take part in the debate — with both positive and negative arguments — which is such an intrinsic part of chemical and scientific progress.

Indeed, one of the great advantages of social media is the way in which it encourages viewers to participate, either by leaving comments, or in the case of YouTube, even by making their own video responses. This allows the viewer to become an active participant, sharing their experience of, and views on, the learning process. From my own experience, user comments have prompted me to reflect on the material I have produced, elicited responses from me, led me to make videos on new topics, and sometimes even enabled me to form new professional relationships. Furthermore, this experience encouraged me to run an undergraduate course in which students could submit their independent learning project work in the form of a YouTube video. In this way, social media can be used to generate really active learning outcomes37–39 — with the students creating engaging, inspiring, innovative and highly educational material that will

continue to inspire the next generation of chemistry learners, as well as being suitable for public consumption.

Beyond YouTube, it is also possible to develop interactive resources that allow students to develop as active and independent learners. For example ChemTube3D, put together by Nick Greeves at Liverpool40, is an excellent collection of 3D structures and animations, ideal for supporting student learning, and ChemSpider41, produced by the Royal Society of Chemistry, is a powerful molecular database for student use. Educators at all levels should embrace such resources and encourage their students to engage with them independently. This will be the secret to our students’ ongoing success as independent learners long after they have left formal education. Furthermore, we should all consider making additional materials ourselves to enrich learning experiences, and allow students to engage with learning outside the traditional classroom setting.

ConclusionsAs chemical practitioners, there are many ways that we can move beyond the image of the crazy chemist sometimes imposed upon us. We know that chemistry is not bad, chemicals are everywhere and understanding them is empowering — we now need to find ways to efficiently convey this to non-chemists, or not-yet-chemists. We can achieve this by engaging with the twin concepts of education and communication, in the same manner we would like our students to engage with chemistry. We need to seek out the very best ways of enticing our own students to become active learners, and in turn, translate these approaches into interactions with a wider audience. I firmly believe that by placing chemistry in a clear societal context, and interacting with our audiences on such issues, we can not only turn our students into more active, independent learners, with the chemical literacy required for innovative problem-solving, but we can also engage the broader population, and convince them that chemistry is an important and inspiring part of their lives. ❐

David K. Smith is at the Department of Chemistry, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. e-mail: [email protected]

References1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_1806622. Public Perceptions of Chemistry, Qualitative Research, Management

Report (Royal Society of Chemistry, 1995).3. Reid, N. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 9, 51–59 (2008).4. Childs, P. E. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10, 189–203 (2009).5. Holman, J. & Hunt, A. Educ. Chem. 39, 12–14 (2002).6. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. J. Chem. Educ.

83, 1557–1561 (2006).7. Schwartz, A. T. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 977–998 (2006).8. Parchmann, I. et al. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 1041–1062 (2006).9. Pilot, A. & Bulte, A. M. W. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 1087–1112 (2006).10. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2011/01/curiosity-driven-

education/11. Cam, A. & Geban, O. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 20, 26–32 (2011).12. King, D., Bellocchi, A. & Ritchie, S. M. Res. Sci. Educ.

38, 365–384 (2008).13. Demircioglu, H., Demircioglu, G. & Calik, M.

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10, 241–249 (2009).14. Marks, R., Bertram, S. & Eilks, I. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

9, 267–276 (2008).15. http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2008/

Number10Petition.asp16. http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2010/

Proposedexams.asp17. Talanquer, V. & Pollard, J. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

11, 74–83 (2010).18. Overton, T. & Potter, N. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 9, 65–69 (2008).19. Smith, D. K. J. Chem. Educ. 83, 1621–1624 (2006).20. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. & Allen, D. J. Chem. Educ.

82, 944–949 (2005).21. Gutwill-Wise, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 78, 684–690 (2001).22. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 120–124 (1999).23. Public Attitudes to Science 2008 – A Survey (Research Councils

UK, 2008).24. Nature Chem. 2, 599 (2010).25. Europeans, Science and Technology (European Commission,

Special Eurobarometer 224, 2005).26. Mahaffy, P., Ashmore, A., Bucat, B., Do, C. & Rosborough, M.

Pure Appl. Chem. 80, 161–174 (2008).27. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. Public Underst.

Sci. 12, 183–202 (2003).28. Sella, A. Educ. Chem. 47, 64 (2010).29. Smith, D. K. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 393–400 (2005).30. Posocco, P., Pricl, S., Jones S. P., Barnard, A & Smith, D. K.

Chem. Sci. 1, 393–404 (2010).31. Jones, S. P., Gabrielson, N. P., Pack, D. W. & Smith, D. K.

Chem. Commun. 4700–4702 (2008).32. http://www.youtube.com/periodicvideos33. http://www.youtube.com/professordaveatyork34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJnr8b526o035. Sood, A., Sarangi, S., Pandey, A. & Murugiah, K. Urology

77, 558–562 (2011).36. Steinberg, P. L. et al. Urology 75, 619–622 (2010).37. Duffy, P. in Proc. 6th European Conf. E-Learning (ed. Remenyi, D.)

173–182 (Academic Conferences, 2007).38. Agazio, J. & Buckley, K. M. Nurse Educator 34, 23–28 (2009).39. Haines, S. L. & van Amburgh, J. A. Am. J. Pharm. Ed.

74, 97 (2010).40. http://www.chemtube3d.com/41. http://www.chemspider.com/

Although physics and biology have been well served by television shows, chemistry has been largely ignored.
