Background

There has been increasing debate in recent years over the future of chemistry as a degree subject^1,2. The need to consider content^1,3, professional accreditation, impact of HEFCE TQA visits⁴ and Dearing⁵ have all led to big questions being asked about what we teach, why we teach it and how we teach it. Against this background is the fact that whilst chemistry "A" levels were taken by 40455 students in 1996, only 2938 students subsequently elected to study chemistry at degree level (average point score 19.4). More students enter medical courses (3,622 students, average point score 28.3) in spite of the tougher, entry requirements.

In addition, the % of 16-18 year olds taking chemistry as one of their "A" Levels has dropped since 1990, when Chemistry courses accounted for 6.76% of "A" Levels. In 1996, the figure had dropped to 5.47%⁶ and this is in a period when the participation rate in Higher Education has doubled⁶.

A number of factors have been blamed/identified as responsible for this decline ^2,6.

• unattractive syllabi
• "hardness" of the subject
• poor career prospects
• boring degree courses
• chemistry is not seen as a vocation
• poor image of chemical industry

It was pointed out at a recent Improve Workshop^6a that the chemistry entries in our University prospectuses do little to tempt the "undecided" student who is looking for something "interesting" to do.

A serious consequence of lower student numbers is that University chemistry departments are fishing in a shrinking pool whose quality and content has declined^4,5. This presents us with some stark choices:

Do we either:

accept the decline and shut chemistry departments?^3a

OR

begin to redress the balance and seek to make our subject more attractive and interesting^3,6b, to put it "high on a lampstand rather than hiding it under a bowl"?⁷

One ray of hope and area of growth has been the Salters "A" level chemistry courses. In the last 5 years the number of entrants taking these courses has risen from 388 to 4200. Schools using Salters courses report increased numbers of students taking chemistry at "A" level (in some cases upto a 50% increase). The course offers better than norm results and decreased drop out rates. The explanation for this lies in the interest in chemistry that the Salters approach engenders in its pupils and staff.

Salters has a unitised structure:

"in which chemical principles are taught within the context of modern applications and the work that chemists do. Students can see the relevance in society of each topic and reasons for learning their advanced chemistry"⁸

The time seems right, therefore, to build upon the Salters principle of a contextual approach and seek to develop it in a way which is suitable for University chemistry degree courses.

Aim:

To design a "Salters style" first year chemistry course that is engaging, creative and stimulating, using material that should attract a greater number of applications to the study of chemistry as a degree course. In addition, the new course/modules should attract students studying other science courses to choose chemistry as one of their option choices/other subjects. It is also envisaged that these courses/modules will provide experience in the broader skills much valued by industry (communication, problem-solving, team working).

It is not intended to debate philosophy at this workshop but rather to say assuming this is the way to go then what if......?

Advantages:

• To attract students who are currently studying "A" levels, who are seriously interested in science but who have currently been put off degree level chemistry by its packaging, structure and perceived lack of relevance and interest.
• To recruit more bright students into the study of chemistry as a degree to take them to the places they want to go.
• To ensure that we all have access to a bigger cake rather than some departments getting a "bigger slice of the cake".
• To provide the same rigor of conceptual understanding (as current MChem courses), but with a framework of modules that will better serve those graduates who are not aiming to be PhD students.

References:

1. Design and Delivery of courses leading to Professional Membership

(RSC April 1994)

2. Chemistry in the UK - will it survive?, RSC Workshops (February 1995)

3.(a) Reduction of Syllabus Position Paper

(b) Reduction of Syllabus, Project Improve Workshop (April 1997)

(URL http://euler.ntu.ac.uk/rwa/improve/news2.html)

4. HEFCE TQA Report : Subject Overview : Chemistry paragraph 34.

(URL http://back.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub95/qo_2_95.html)

5. Extracts from Dearing Report, 4.77

(URL http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/index.htm)

6. (a) Developments at School University Interface, Project Improve Workshop July 1997

(b) Directors of Study, Improve meeting, November 1997

7. Luke 8:16, 17 (paraphrase of) (Good News Bible)

8. Salters Advanced Chemistry : University of Cambridge Syllabus for 1998.

Back to index page