Session 4 : What is first year chemistry?

At the end of Session 3 the question was asked

To look at this there was a group exercise followed by a plenary discussion

Group Exercise

To have the most impact the material chosen should be common to as many Universities as possible so to determine this the following group work was undertaken:-

Sets of syllabi for first year degree^‡ courses were distributed with the instructions:-

 "In your groups spend 10 minutes as individuals considering a university syllabus for first year degree chemistry and pick out major topics taught. Then share this with other members of your group and compile a list of common topics."

^{Group Survey Results of First Year Degree Courses in Chemistry} 

 ^{‡ (The groups were looking at syllabi from a good cross section of a universities.)}

Plenary Session on Survey Results

Following the group presentations it seemed obvious to state that there was commonality in the topics being taught at UK universities, in fact there was a core of common topics!

It is, therefore, valid to take some of these common areas and seek to contextualise them, ie. groups pick an area and do that topic rather then everybody trying to do everything.

In the discussion that followed the following contributions were made :-. 

• The contextual approach would benefit from being able to cross "subject" boundaries, but there are problems of departments protecting their "autonomy".
• To sell this approach requires a sales pitch and a critical mass of colleagues to make it work.
• Some universities are actively planning core chemistry material not broken down into IOP and using "Chemistry: an integrated approach" as their textbook. (Housecraft and Constable’s book)
• To get the Salters syllabus accepted at ‘A’ level required an active campaign, advertising it around the country and having a core of 24 schools that acted as seed crystals. The best recommendaton was found to be another teacher. ‘A’ level science teaching was also ripe for a new approach (initial trials started in 1991, it was 1994 before the books were published to support it).
• To get this approach accepted does require infiltration into departments.
• Revisiting the debate about the best structure, it was felt that areas with strands extending to other areas was wonderful but not very flexible or transferable. Chunks attractive to a number of institutions would slot in more easily.
• Experience with colleagues using novel teaching approaches just for their bit of the course was that students tolerated it rather than it being ‘life-changing’. [Many prefer dictated notes]
• Producing of book of storylines that would be offered to colleagues to help them contextualise their courses should be profitable.
• This begs the question: what should a storyline cover - several topics or one topic?
• However, knowing everywhere does S_N1 reactions means they be referred to when I am teaching my topic.
• To develop this needs a good team for writing Year 1 material and knowing what the ‘core’ is will allow minor links to be made pointing towards other topics. (Closed topics but not smooth all over)
• Not yet a fully integrated model but using storylines to kick start and finish a topic.

 Summary of points

• Ought to generate material to cover common areas.
• Adopt a drip feeding approach into UK universities.
• Plan to move towards an integrated course for Semester 1.
• Put together a big proposal on a formal basis to publish the storylines produced.

Back to index page