Impediments to Change

I recently heard a lead administrator of a major public research institution address a group of STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) faculty.  In the comments there was a lambasting of the teaching of general chemistry and general biology.  The speaker's suggestion was that the problem of the shrinking numbers of students in the STEM pipeline would be resolved if the Chemistry and Biology faculty were not chasing students away in the introductory courses. 

While I think the speaker is overstating their case, there is some value in discussing the issue from a number of perspectives.  There is much finger pointing in calls for change in pedagogy.  I am reminded that back on the playground it was noted that when you point a finger at someone, three of your other fingers are pointing back at you.

It is easy to blame the faculty for not radically changing course content, but what happens when they try?  An introductory course is a prerequisite for subsequent courses.  How does the change effect those courses?  To radically change an entry level course demands that were reconsider, and possibly adjust, the entire curriculum that rests on it.  

Once a curriculum has been changed, what effect is there on accreditation of the program?  On this regard I must acknowledge the positive changes made in the last few years by the Committee on Professional Training of the American Chemical Society to make the accredited curriculum less rigid.

Textbook publishers will not publish texts that diverge too much from those currently available because a radically divergent text may not find an audience among textbook committees.  It will then not recoup the investment made in bringing it to market.  So, if we radically change the course, we are on our own to create both course content and a textbook.

Course and program development for the most part do not bring in external money, although there is some available.  In research active departments pedagogy is not considered scholarly activity unless you where hired as a science education specialist.  (My Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee would not count a J. Chem. Ed. paper I wrote as scholarly activity because I was hired as an organic chemist).

Lastly, calls for change in how we teach are hindered by transferability demands.  The senior administration, if not the state legislature, often demand that we accept courses from other universities and junior colleges funded by the state.  If we radically rewrite courses we lose transferability, either outbound to other campuses or inbound to our campus. 

The effect of all this is to make change to courses and in the curriculum occur at a glacial pace.  

I do believe that we should reconsider how we prepare students for a life in science.  There are days when I would like to gather a group of interested parties to start with a clean slate and redesign the chemistry curriculum in light of the mature science it has become.  But, then I think about the time it would take from the research that "counts" and the difficulty in putting it in to action with no transferability or accreditation, or university support.  As Archimedes noted, to move the world requires a big enough level and a place to stand.  If we really want to reconsider how science is taught, university administration must become part of the team and work with faculty to redesign the courses and curriculum and implement them.

T.S. Hall