Ensuring the Relevance of an Evidence-Based Chemistry Teacher Education Study Program: Narrative Insights from Continuous Research-Based Development Conducted in the University of Helsinki

1. Introduction

High-quality chemistry education is extremely important, and this requires chemistry teachers with an extensive knowledge of chemistry and a comprehensive understanding of chemistry as a science. Chemistry is a versatile and rapidly evolving science. It is a massive research field with one of the world's largest industrial sectors – the chemical industry supports over 120 million jobs worldwide.[1] Chemical research is highly multidisciplinary, and chemistry is a key science in developing solutions to all major sustainability challenges, such as climate change, sustainable energy, clean water and a sufficient food supply for all people.[2] Despite its high societal relevance and excellent employment opportunities, the field has a major challenge – there is a massive shortage of skilled workforce.[3] In other words, not enough students are studying chemistry.

The reason behind the lack of students is resulting from at least two factors. The first issue is the lack of experienced relevance. Many scholars have reported that young people do not find chemistry interesting, or more precisely, relevant.[4,5,6,7,8] This affects the overall number of chemistry students, which has been a global concern for decades.[9] Fortunately, the chemistry education research (CER) community is aware of the relevance challenge. In recent years, CER scholars have actively been developing novel evidence-based relevance-oriented learning materials as a solution to the challenge.[10,11,12,13] The second issue is a high dropout rate. In many parts of the world, more than 30% of chemistry undergraduate students fail to finish their degrees.[14,15,16] Efforts to solve the dropout challenge have been made, for example, with enhanced student guidance[17], strengthening the vocational relevance via career weeks[18], job shadowing, industrial site visits[19] and career-oriented inquiry-based activities[20].

We agree that it is important to support higher education chemistry studies by strengthening its vocational relevance. However, it does not solve the first challenge. According to research, an interest in science is created in childhood.[7,21] Therefore, we claim that the most efficient way to improve the situation is to train skilled and enthusiastic chemistry teachers. Chemistry teachers are the key stakeholders in introducing the potential of chemistry to young learners and to inspire them into chemistry careers.[22] Therefore, high-quality chemistry teacher education (CTE) is the cornerstone of developing chemistry both as an academic and industrial field.

Future chemistry teachers are trained in tertiary education through academic study programs. Usually, chemistry teachers graduate from CTE or broader STEM teacher programs. Whatever the specific name, they are usually academic higher education degrees. Therefore, we argue that high-quality academic CTE needs to be evidence-based and research-oriented. At the University of Helsinki (Finland) we have been developing evidence-based CTE and training research-oriented chemistry teachers (ROCTs) for over 20 years.[23]

However, there is a constant need to develop and update the program because chemistry as a science is itself developing rapidly. For example, there have continuously been major advances in sustainable chemistry, modern technology, and material sciences. Future chemistry teachers need an up-to-date understanding of the field so that they can integrate contemporary science into their teaching. This is particularly important because chemistry in schools is being taught predominantly from a historical perspective.[24] This does not seem to appeal to large numbers of learners, which leads to the main challenge in the field, namely that young people do not experience chemistry as relevant.[13] Therefore, there is a special need to strengthen the vocational and societal relevance of chemistry education.[12]

Based on this background, the aim of the article is to report on what kind of research-based development is constantly required to keep an academic higher education study program relevant and up-to-date. The aim is fulfilled by providing narrative insights by analyzing selected design-based research projects that our group has implemented in the past. We start by defining evidence-based CTE and continue by describing the characteristics of ROCTs (Section 2). These are needed to understand the nature and requirements of evidence-based CTE. Then we introduce the applied research methodology (Section 3) and report results (Section 4). The article ends with conclusions and take-home messages (Section 5)

2. Evidence-Based Chemistry Teacher Education

2.1. Definition of the Term “Evidence-Based”

We defined evidence-based CTE by reviewing several “evidence-based” educational terms and crafting a suitable concept for chemistry educational purposes. In the literature scholars have defined “evidence-based” from a content or educational research perspective. Ratcliffe et al.[25] discuss “evidence-based practices” when they refer to the usage of educational research methods for ensuring efficient pedagogical practices. They identified the need for evidence-based teaching through focus-group interviews of educational experts, researchers, policymakers, and teachers. Toom and Husu[26] use the term “research-based” for a similar context. They argue that a research-based orientation in tertiary teacher education is essential. It enables future teachers to engage and understand their teaching profession on a more comprehensive level. The matter is so crucial why the development of a teacher education should be based on systematic research strategy.[27]

Evidence-based practices encourage teachers to think like educational researchers. However, according to Valcke[28], the “teacher as a researcher” analogy does not mean that the teacher professional should be an academic research position. It is more of a practice-oriented approach applying simple research settings to develop their own teaching and learning, taking an inquiry-based approach. For example, an iterative collaborative design approach could be taken to develop local level pedagogical models alongside peer teachers. The decision making could be supported with up-to-date scientific literature and researcher consultation through networks built up during university studies. The solutions developed could be validated using data gathered through observation and feedback questionnaires.[28]

In the context of CTE, the other building block of an evidence-based approach is chemical research. Therefore, in addition to the latest educational research insights, future chemistry teachers need to be able to include up-to-date chemical research in their teaching.[23] This can often be challenging because teachers are not active chemistry researchers, and the current research topics may not be included in their studies or the latest research results will have come after their graduation.[24] Fortunately, there are several ways of including contemporary research in the curriculum. Teachers can participate in in-service training events and courses to update their knowledge base and network[29,30,31] or use recent learning materials developed by CER scholars in collaboration with researchers[12].

2.2. Research-Oriented Chemistry Teacher

The aim of evidence-based CTE is to produce research-oriented chemistry teachers, i.e., ROCTs.[23] It is important to realize that the research component of an ROCT is CER. According to Taber[32], CER can be inherent, embedded or collateral (see Figure 1). The inherent approach focuses on research questions arising from the practices of chemistry education and chemistry as a science. Embedded CER research has a general educational focus that has been conceptualized in the context of chemistry. Collateral CER is educational research where, for example, data has been collected in a chemistry learning context without subject-specific conceptual operationalization. The CER community has a strong consensus that the intrinsic approach is most important for the development of the research field.[32]

2.3. Required Knowledge Components

The ROCT’s expertise is built up from various knowledge areas. To illustrate the diversity of the required knowledge components, we use a technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPASK) framework for modelling them. TPASK is an application of a technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework designed especially for supporting the professional development of science teachers by integrating authentic research and nature of science (NOS) into the framework.[33,34] Many scholars consider NOS as central goal in science education.[35] TPACK is a general educational model focusing on content knowledge rather than scientific knowledge.[36] In this regard, TPASK model is more suitable for our needs than TPACK.

TPASK can be visualized with a Venn diagram of technology, science, and pedagogy (see Figure 2). The overlapping knowledge areas are technological science knowledge (TSK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and pedagogical science knowledge (PSK).[33]

By using the TPASK framework, we can illustrate the diversity of essential knowledge areas required of ROCTs:

PSK: The foundations of an ROCT’s expertise are good chemistry knowledge, excellent pedagogical skills and chemistry educational understanding of how these two are combined meaningfully.[37] In addition, ROCTs care about their pupils’ and students’ learning. This knowledge is PSK because it combines chemistry and pedagogy.[33]

Science: ROCTs understand the (NOS) both in the context of chemistry and educational sciences. This means, e.g., that they understand how science works as an institution and how it is evaluated, how new information is produced and why, what the role of science is in society, sustainability and politics and how science is financed.[38,39] This knowledge is purely science knowledge. Note that the emphasis is on science and not only content. In this regard, the TPASK framework enables a more comprehensive understanding of the required expertise than the TPACK model.[33,36]

Pedagogy: ROCTs have curious minds and are interested in constantly learning new things.[23] To fulfil their learning needs, ROCTs have good meta level skills, and they can evaluate continuous personal learning needs. ROCTs apply an inquiry-based approach to learning and engage with non-formal in-service learning resources, courses and events.[30,31,40]

TSK, TPK, and Technology: Technology is integrated in everything. ROCTs need to master the usage of technology both in chemistry and education as well as in their chemistry educational interface. ROCTs follow the latest chemical, educational and chemistry educational research on both national and international levels. ROCTs are able to integrate contemporary science into the chemistry curriculum and their own teaching.[23] From the TSK and PSK perspective, following the latest research is vital because chemistry is a data-driven rapidly developing instrumental science.[41] Educational technology also takes huge leaps every year. For example, in recent years generative AI has same to chemistry education.[42]

TPASK: ROCTs can develop their teaching via educational research methods on a practical level and disseminate results along the appropriate channels. In the best scenario, research and development projects are conducted in collaboration with peers and members of the personal learning network.[26,43]

2.4. Professional Identities

As mentioned, we aim to train ROCTs that have two professional identities. We claim that chemistry teachers should consider themselves to be not only teachers but also chemists.[23] This is a challenging topic, and teachers might even experience conflict between different identities.[40] Our previous research indicates that for example engaging with non-formal teaching activities during pre-service education effectively supports the development of teacher identity.[44] However, we have also noted that the teacher identity often comes more dominant why we are currently developing ways how to strengthen future chemistry teachers’ chemist identity. If there is no possibility for research training courses or apprenticeships[40], engaging with chemists and up-to-date research seem to be promising work method[45].

Teachers’ professional identity, a complex construct of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours that define them as educators, is crucial for teachers’ efficacy and adaptability.[46,47] Therefore, this is an essential issue to address in chemistry teacher education, especially from the perspective of the under-represented chemist identity. Our solution is to engage future chemistry teachers with contemporary chemical research in the CER courses offered. In this context, the location within the University of Helsinki Chemistry Department is crucial because this gives us direct access to chemistry scholars and their research groups. As members of the chemical research community, we are able to design our teaching to highlight the precise research focus of the Chemistry Department. The Department’s research areas are materials, energy, health, and environment and we approach these through our research group’s focus areas, which are sustainable chemistry and modern technology. In Figure 3 we illustrate the interaction of different research foci and their contribution to the ROCTs’ professional development.

We argue that engagement with contemporary science supports the relevance challenge. Learning from the latest chemical research and interacting with chemistry scholars develops future teachers’ understanding of relevance holistically. This will strengthen their chemist identity and improve their ability to include up-to-date chemical research in their teaching. Further, engaging young people more with contemporary science could be the solution to the relevance problem that the whole CER community has been seeking for over a decade.[13]

However, it should be noted that, before studying the subject, the teacher must encounter learners as people and create a good learning environment suitable for all. This is a well-known fact and applied in teacher education since the 1980’s.[37,48] In this regard, pedagogical skills are extremely important, even though content knowledge is the core knowledge that every chemistry teacher should master.

3. Methodology

This study is theoretical research that produces qualitative[49] in-depth descriptions of different kind of development needs that our CTE study program has had over the years. These descriptions are narratives insights representing good practices retrieved from our research and 25 years of experience in chemistry teacher education. The narratives are built around our current research foci aligned with the department research strategy (see Figure 3). The production of narratives is guided using the following research questions:

What kind of research resources and strategies are suitable for developing a CTE study program?

What kind of development needs and levels there are for ensuring the relevance of a CTE study program over time?

3.1. Production of Narratives

In this research we define narratives as frameworks that help others to position their stories under an coherent body of knowledge.[50] However, we do not work with stories – our focus are research-based design strategies, needs, objectives and agendas. We have ensured the objectivity by interpreting generated narratives thorough the theoretical framework presented in Section 2. Theory-grounded production of narratives is mentioned important by Smith and Monforte[50] in their methodological article of narrative analysis.

According to Smith and Monforte[50] working with narratives starts with deciding the data source or story. In our case we data sources are the selected research articles we published from research-based development of CTE (see Appendix). After selection, we generated narratives by summarizing the key points of the selected research projects and reflecting them to the reviewed literature.[51] Reference articles are cited as A1, A2 and so on. A refers to appendix and number indicates the order of appearance.

3.2. Research Context: Current Degree Structure and Courses of the Developed CTE

In this section we describe research context including the degree structure and CER courses offered in the CTE under inspection. The aim for introducing the background is to support the validity and reliability of the production of narratives. The narratives are qualitative by nature, so it is important to describe the context accurate that narratives can be applied to other CTE contexts.[49]

The CTE study program at the University of Helsinki has a standard European higher education degree structure. It comprises 300 ECTS credits, consisting of a BSc degree of 180 ECTS and an MSc degree of 120 ECTS (Table 1). The Bachelor’s degree is planned as a three-year study track organized by the Faculty of Science. The Master’s degree is planned to take two years. It is also administered by the Faculty of Science, but a 60 ECTS portion of the MSc degree consists of pedagogical studies organized by the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Pedagogical studies include two teaching practice periods in the University of Helsinki Training Schools. Pedagogical studies are usually conducted in the fourth year. For their fifth and final year, the students return to the Faculty of Science and complete their CER Master’s thesis in the Department of Chemistry. The MSc degree includes at least 75 ECTS of CER studies, which means that at least 25% of the program is allocated to CER. This is important because CER studies are the only way to ensure a research-oriented approach in CTE.

To ensure constant engagement with CER studies, we have divided CER courses evenly through the study years. The curriculum has been iterated for over 20 years in 3 to 4-year curriculum cycles. Courses and course contents are developed and updated to match the current professional needs of chemistry teachers.

In the BSc studies we offer 5 CER courses, a thesis (6 ECTS) and seminar (1 ECTS), and a few general science education courses. At the Master’s level, there are 4 courses, a thesis (30 ECTS), and a CER research seminar (5 ECTS) (see Table 2).

Research skills are at the core of CER expertise. We have designed a course that focuses on methodological issues as well as integrating different skills into every CER course. Research skills range from simple tasks, such as information retrieval and essay writing, to more complex skills, such as case study and design-based research (DBR). The specialized CER course is optional for Master’s students but mandatory for PhD students.

4. Results

4.1. Research Resources and Strategies CER and CTE (RQ1)

World changes all the time and science are progressing rapidly. Therefore, we need to update and re-develop our CTE program constantly. As mentioned, we use DBR as a research approach to ensure that development is based on research. DBR is a research-based development strategy designed to build educational artefacts such learning materials, pedagogical models and courses.[52,53,54] It was originally developed in the 90’s and was initially called design experiments.[55] Then in the last 30 years the methodology has evolved and currently DBR or educational design research (EDR) studies are a widely adopted research strategy used broadly in the educational field.[53]

We follow Edelson’s DBR model where the design process is conducted through empirical and theoretical problem analyses. Edelson’s model is suitable for our needs because it produces practical artefacts (design solutions) that we can use as platforms for empirical studies to generate insights and theories.[52] DBR as a methodology is constantly developing but it is important that research projects are based on authentic needs and design is decisions are validated through empirical studies and grounded to relevant theoretical frameworks.[56] Recent advances in the field emphasizes the collaborative nature of the design projects, why we use a co-design model.[43,57] Co-design is essential because developing up-to-date courses and learning activities require expertise from multiple stakeholders such as chemistry researchers and educational experts. Also, the needs of the end users (teachers and learners) must be included in the need analysis to produce usable solutions.

Usually, chemistry research groups have their own research laboratories. Similarly, during the years we have noted that CER requires a laboratory, but we also need a data interface for conducting the empirical stages of DBR projects efficiently. Therefore, we have built a research and development (R&D) platform called LUMAlab Gadolin.[58] It is a non-formal learning environment co-designed by our research group, research groups from our department, chemical industry companies and LUMA Centre Finland (see Figure 4). LUMA Centre Finland is a science and math education network of Finnish universities. LUMA is an acronym referring to Finnish words science (luonnontieteet) and mathematics (matematiikka).[59]

Our ontological purpose as a research group is to develop novel solutions for supporting the relevance of chemistry education. Derived from our research strategy, we work especially with modern technology and sustainable chemistry education. For example, we explore new educational technology and craft pedagogical models’ suitable chemistry educational contexts^A[1]–^A[2] or develop new learning materials in collaboration with department’s chemistry research groups^A[3]. We are located inside a department of chemistry not in an educational faculty. The location enables direct collaboration with chemistry research group on a weekly basis. For example, recently we developed laboratory activity on ionic liquids based on authentic research in cooperation with an organic chemistry research group^A[3].

Much of the research is done with international collaboration^A[4]–^A[7]. Through the DBR approach, the learning materials developed can be used to explore their effect on experienced relevance^A[8]. Every year more than 4 000 learners and teachers make non-formal study visits to Gadolin, and we use this for data gathering.

To support the development of research skills of ROCTs, LUMAlab Gadolin teaching and DBR activities are integrated into every CTE course that we offer. Through Gadolin, future chemistry teachers learn how to teach in a laboratory and how to develop inquiry-based learning materials. This increases the professional relevance of our CTE program^A[9]. During the last 15 years we have collected data for over 100 Master’s theses, 15 PhD dissertations and dozens of research articles.

4.2. Development Needs and Levels (RQ2)

Next, we answer the RQ2 by describing different levels of development needs. The levels and needs are reported via narratives that represent authentic research projects conducted in developing the CTE study program.

4.2.1. Level 1: Learning Resources for Courses

Modern technology is one focus area of our research group. In the past, we started with technologies such molecular modelling^A[10] and microcomputer-based-laboratories^A[11]. They represented modern technology in chemistry education back in the time, but recently we have been focusing on educational cheminformatics^A[7], ^A[12]. Since new technologies are developed and published constantly, we need to iterate technologies integrated in our CER courses through rapid cycles to offer up-to-date education. For example, a few years ago 3D printing was growing in the CER field. In collaboration with an analytical chemistry research group from the Department, we conducted a systematic literature review of the possibilities that it offers for chemistry education^A[2]. Based on this review, we have designed learning activities that are included in one of the CER courses. LUMAlab Gadolin offers state-of-the-art laboratory equipment needed to impel the developed activities^A[12]. Ensuring technological relevance requires constant development. In the latest research project, we worked with generative chatbot tools and designed activities that teach future chemistry teachers how to use them. TPACK models was used in grounding the activities to a suitable theoretical framework^A[1].

From another perspective, we can use pupils, students and teachers who visit Gadolin to explore the relevance of our crafted technology. For example, in one study we developed molecular modelling activities for lower-secondary education, and the pupils we studied perceived relevance after engaging with the activity. LUMAlab Gadolin enabled the collection of a quantitative sample size. This research started as a Master’s thesis and led to a full research article^A[8]. We argue that engaging students with authentic research is a good practice to encourage them to pursue PhD studies in CER. However, this needs methodological knowledge why we have included them to every CER course during the studies (see Table 2).

4.2.2. Level 2: Pedagogical Models and Courses

Another focus area of our research group is sustainable chemistry. As an example, we describe an ongoing PhD project that aims to develop a pedagogical model of how to teach systems thinking in the context of sustainable chemistry. We started a course called “Sustainable Chemistry” that is a mandatory Bachelor’s level course offered future chemistry teachers. After a few courses, we noticed that systems thinking is one of the key competences that should be included in the course. To ensure research-based development we started a PhD project around it.

First, a PhD researcher conducted a problem analysis on how sustainability development competences are taught in universities throughout Finland^A[13]. Based on the knowledge acquired, we developed a pedagogical model that was integrated into the course. The model uses authentic sustainable chemistry contexts retrieved from scholars working in the Department or in chemical industry companies. The chemists' perceptions ensured an evidence-based background^A[14]. Next, the model was tested empirically in the course. We are currently working on reporting the results of the empirical phase. In this research project, LUMAlab Gadolin served as the communication platform between our research group, scholars from the Department and industry.

4.2.3. Level 3: Program and University Level Development

As described in the research context section (3.2), the CTE program of the University of Helsinki is conducted as a collaboration between two Faculties and four Departments. Because of multiple stakeholders participating in the teaching, it is important to ensure coherence in the study program. In this context, it means that courses and study units are designed to build upon the previous knowledge and all courses contribute to the overall objectives set for the program.[26] In the University of Helsinki we support coherence between different Departments and Faculties through a co-design approach maintained by continuous communication and regular meetings.[43]

Through our research program we have built a strong relation between chemistry, chemistry education and pedagogy courses and the latest research conducted in these fields. Note that this model has been considered one of the explanatory factors in Finland's high PISA rankings earlier. It is crucial that STEM teachers acquire pedagogical knowledge and skills, acquire extensive knowledge of the scientific fields they teach and the nature of scientific knowledge.[60]

4.2.4. Level 4: National and International Level Development

The largest scale of the research-based development our CTE is engaged in focuses on improving the state of science education both in Finland and internationally. This also requires the largest networks and well planned co-design projects.[43] Within Finland, we contribute to the development of STEM education as part of the national LUMA Centre Finland. The LUMA Centre actively applies for national and international funding that enable efficient project lifecycle.[59]

In addition to LUMA projects, our research group also collaborates directly with other CER groups via international R&D projects. For example, Chemical Safety in Science Education (CheSSE) is an ongoing ERASMUS+ project where we develop an educational online resource repository of chemical safety for science teachers and educational decisions makers across Europe. The repository is developed in collaboration with several universities and schools. To promote maximum dissemination materials are published in five languages (EN, FI, SL, SV and NO).[61]