The first 2-day meeting of the ad hoc
IUPAC Education Strategy Development Committee (ESDC) was held at
the Royal Institution in London on
20-21 feb 2000. Among the members of the Committee, only one member
was unable to attend; in addition, Prof. J. Jortner, IUPAC's immediate
past president was present for the first day of the meeting.
> See group photo
The ESDC Chairman, Prof. P. W. Atkins <[email protected]>
has provided the following letter. Please pass it along to your colleagues
who may have interest in educational matters.
Committee on Teaching Chemistry
(CTC) has had a long and honourable history under a sequence of inspired
and enthusiastic chairmen. It has done notable work in fields springing
from its original interests, which lie in the general domain of secondary
education, and its work has been extended to include tertiary education
too. Its notable successes lie in its contribution to the furthering
of chemistry education in developing countries, with its provision of
access to inexpensive equipment, small-scale procedures, and printed
resources.
Readers of Chemistry
International will have seen (News Section in the March 2000
issue) that as part of its general strategic development, the Bureau
has decided that the time has come for IUPAC to examine its educational
role, and particularly the role of the CTC, in the modern world, to
encourage the CTC to broaden its horizons, to engage in a wider range
of activities, and to consider its direction afresh. To that end, it
has set up a committee, the Education Strategy Development Committee
(ESDC) under my chairmanship. The members
of the committee come from a wide range of countries and represent
a variety of interests. The terms of reference
of the ESDC can be found on the IUPAC web site and were published in
Chemistry International. Broadly speaking, they encourage the
committee to carry out a root-and-branch analysis of the current structure
of the CTC and other contributors to the educational program of IUPAC,
and to look for imaginative ways to extend its reach. In particular,
the ESDC is asked to consider how to incorporate into IUPAC's activities
support for the public understanding of chemistry.
So far, the ESDC has had one meeting (at the Royal
Institution in London, arguably the historical home of public understanding
of chemistry). It quickly became clear at the meeting that there was
one task we had to do if we were to compile a worthwhile report: we
had to discover what the members of IUPAC wanted. There are already
numerous educational initiatives under way throughout the world, and
the ESDC wanted to avoid replication, inappropriate expenditure of effort,
and -to express it directly- the treading on of toes. What is there
special about IUPAC that can lead it to make a useful, effective, and
welcome contribution to chemical education throughout the world? Which
of its current activities are wasteful of volunteers' enthusiasm and
effort?
In an attempt to gather our stakeholders' views, I have written to
a large number of organizations. However, I know that lurking in the
world are numerous good ideas. I am therefore using this page of to
encourage anyone who has a view to write to me. I am particularly
interested in imaginative global visions. An idea for developing
an inexpensive synchrotron storage ring, reusable litmus paper, or whatever,
can wait until the newly constituted CTC (if that is our recommendation)
is in place: what the committee seeks are strategic ideas. Where
should IUPAC's educational effort be directed? Where is its current
effort wasted? How can it best reach the people who will benefit from
its activities? How can IUPAC's activities mesh helpfully and constructively
into the infrastructure of national and individual initiatives? Where
should it step aside? Where would it be most welcome? Is there a role
for IUPAC in contributing to the public understanding of science? How
do we deploy the new media? What new media should we anticipate?
In considering these questions (and others like them), we have in mind
two sets of slices through our stakeholders. One set divides our constituency
into three horizontal bands: secondary education, tertiary education,
and the general public (to cover public understanding of chemistry).
The second way of dividing up our domain is into the developed world,
the developing world, and global issues. We are aware, for instance,
that in some developed countries, there is a worrying drift from science
and from chemistry in particular. In developing countries, the principal
object of concern is perhaps the expansion of the technological base
through education. The most obvious global issues are the protection
and reclamation of the environment and the encouragement of sustainable
development. Views on any aspect of our task-or entirely different ways
of approaching the problem-would be most welcome.
The committee is already working hard on a number of issues that we
have identified. It will meet again in July, when it hopes to be able
to work towards compiling at least an interim report. That report will
be infinitely more valuable if it includes ideas that reflect what the
world really wants rather than what we think it needs. Please do write
to me <[email protected]>,
or pass on your comments to other members
of the committee by the end of May 2000.
