Chemical Education Division

My personal opinion is that the titration competition needs to cease being a ranked competition with a defined winner, as this simply isn't appropriate in the context of what is a proficiency testing activity that should reinforce to participants that many calculated concentrations are within a valid band for the expected skillset for this activity.

It is my recommendation that there be consideration by the ChemEd Division of the improved value to school-age participants that engage in this outreach activity by the RACI to have in place performance-related metrics for awarding tiers to individuals and teams, which reflect their competency from the data submitted. 

Inherent within the titration activities are uncertainties of measurement, which we do not ask the students to consider, and yet which we all appreciate means there will be a consensus of calculated concentrations to arise from the aggregated data submitted to each competition.

Bearing this in mind, I contend it is somewhat punitive and potentially offputting for a reasonably talented student to have a numerical ranking for their school's result and not necessarily know if their measured values were acceptable.

I'm happy to have a broader conversation on this topic with those actively involved in reviewing the Titration Competition outreach activities, as I have been wrestling with for at least a couple of years now on how to suggest reform.

Dan

I have to agree with you about the titration competition, Daniel, and that's speaking as a sometime titration expert. Our (former) little company Multitrator made automated multi-mode titration systems featuring TET (thermometric endpoint titrimetry) and we sold the enabling technology to Metrohm. All in all, I developed over 100 applications for process and quality control, and there was some interesting chemistry along the way. However, the kids aren't going to experience what a still useful industrial technique titration is, what with 0.1M HCl and NaOH to a phenolpthalein EP. Totally boring and frustrating. I think we need to think way outside the box about ho to get kids interested in STEM. It's looking like we could be circling the drain unless something drastic and radical is done. Could this be the subject of another thread?

Hullo Dan!

Thanks for posting this - it's great to see some new ideas and interest in the Schools-based competitions (I know your focus here is the titration competition but I believe your perspective is a useful one to stoke discussion of the Schools-based programs across the RACI). 

Your idea of removing the ranking-based approach is an interesting one to consider as I agree that external motivators such as being placed ahead of your peers is not really the kind of motivation we would like to see in our students (and certainly with regard to literature on educational best practice, external motivators are considered to be less useful in fostering deep understanding and interest in a topic - self-determination theory is a great one that discusses the spectrum of motivation and how it ties to learning). The tiered approach may be a great avenue to explore as it would also allow recognition of all students who are attaining exemplary results across the board.

On the matter of actioning this kind of change (or feeding it through to the review of these programs), there are a few factors to consider. I was on all RACI working groups that reviewed the Schools-based programs offered by the RACI at both State and National levels in 2023 and the RACI Board has been busy with organisational-level changes (as evidenced by this lovely online platform for discussion). Here are the key things I think to keep in mind:

• These programs live and die through the extensive amount of time donated by RACI members to organise these programs at the State level. Importantly, any innovations to change the nature of these programs needs both buy-in from those volunteers AND ongoing champions of the innovations to gain momentum.
• Many secondary schools have, over time, incorporated activities such as the titration and crystal growing competitions into their annual teaching activities to meet curriculum demands. Any substantial change to these programs would benefit greatly from seeking feedback and input from the secondary sector - the new Teaching Advisory Board within the RACI would be an excellent avenue to draw expertise from.
• Thinking about Tom's response to your original post on the matter of enthusing students and including contemporary practices - this really comes down to two challenges:
  1. Accessibility of equipment and resources. Part of the reason the competition has been so successful with something as simple as traditional burettes with HCl and NaOH is the fact that almost all schools have the equipment and HCl and NaOH are cheap and (relatively) safe. 
  2. Sponsorship and/or buy-in from industry to sustain this across a State or National scope. This could overcome some of the hurdles with item 1 but again requires champions with those connections. It also raises a challenging question on the appropriateness of a National scale competition vs State-based. This has been discussed in the back-end through the 2023 reviews and is still under discussion for long-term plans.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Apologies again for the extensive delay. I should also mention that the RACI Chemistry Education Division does not actually administer any of the Schools-based programs (though our committee members are often involved as organisers or have been historically - I actually ran the Tasmanian crystal-growing competition for quite a few years prior to moving to NSW). The State Branches are often actively involved in the organisation of the programs with support from the National Office depending on which competition is running.

Cheers,
Reyne

Hi Reyne,

As per my private messages, I am quite happy to discuss some of my thoughts with you in relation to the titration competitions being more akin to a proficiency testing activity that provides recognition to all participants able to achieve suitably acceptable results.

Dan

Hello Reyne, I take your comments seriously, because of your expertise and knowledge of the chemical education sector. I would go further than Daniel, and suggest that the RACI should cease altogether supporting such activities as titration and crystal-growing competitions. I think the RACI's overarching consideration should be "how does this (planned) activity advance the aims of the RACI - will it lead to more students taking up the profession of chemistry, will it lead to a greater understanding of what chemistry is, what it involves and how it affects our lives". 

I needed your post to remind me of the very large effort that is required from volunteers to run these competitions. The logistics alone are very considerable. But to what end? Do we have any metrics as to how many students have been encouraged to further their chemistry studies as a result?

About industry sponsorship. Companies pay out money to advertise their products to potential customers, demonstrate and promote the products face to face or in company-controlled presentations, or to build their brands. Sponsoring school competitions doesn't really fit. I made a mistake years back when we were launching our Multitrator multi-mode titration system. I sponsored the RACI titration competition held at one of the university venues in Brisbane. We got nothing out of it, not even a mention. The next year, the organiser got snarky with me when I said I wouldn't do it again. 

I'm not in the ed-biz, so I really can't offer anything meaningful as to how the RACI can support the teaching of chemistry in schools. 'However, I do have a feeling that kids should be introduced to science in general and chemistry in particular much earlier in their education journey, and that from the beginning it should be done in an exciting and involving way. 

Hullo both!

Apologies for the delayed response to your private messages Daniel - I've now responded :)

Thanks for your response Tom - you raise some good points and I always welcome the opportunity to discuss the merits of outreach and education for an organisation such as the RACI. I think it's important to remember that a key part of the RACI Charter is engaging in public and school-based outreach and education. In my mind, this should be considered just as important as direct services and benefits to members since we are the national society that represents chemistry at all levels. You are right though that it is hard to articulate impact as such - being an education researcher (alongside my chemistry background), this is a constant challenge where understanding an individual's experiences or influences becomes an extremely complex issue to disentangle.  Particularly when the timeframe between participation in these programs and graduating as a chemist (or similar degree pathway) might be years. Despite this challenge, the anecdotal responses and feedback received at the community level (even years later) always echo those micro-moments where students engaged in a positive experience such as the titration and crystal growing competition. Many of my co-students who grew up in Australia when we went through undergraduate studies at UTas had participated in those programs and cited those (alongside interactions with teachers a host of other reasons) as part of what attracted them to pursue and continue chemistry. Long answer that doesn't really specifically address your concerns but I think if we had to quantify the impact of everything we do of this nature, it would be hard to justify anything at all! 

On the matter of sponsorship, I'm sorry that you had that experience. I think industry sponsorship of these sorts of events can be a very positive arrangement but it does depend on the organising body to negotiate what that looks like with the industry partner. Each time I have been involved in something like that, I spend a considerable amount of time at the beginning detailing what it looks like, how the money translates to the event, and what the outcomes should be to ensure both parties are happy. I also think there are times where feeding back into the community is a priority for the organisation (a bit easier perhaps in Tasmania where the community is so small that it tends to be very connected to industry by necessity).

We now have a team within the National Office that is directly working on partnership with industry and what that sponsorship looks like so I think they'd be an excellent point of contact if you wanted to explore opportunities that have a more direct outcome for your business - I would be happy to point you in the right direction if that is useful :)

Thanks again to you both for offering your perspectives and continuing the discussion.

Hi everyone,

Just my 2 cents worth

Prior to COVID, I was working in a Year 11 and 12 College in Tasmania, and found one of the benefits of the Titration Competition was the fact that the students actually went to UTas and were in the chemistry labs there rather than at school. It was for a number of our students a great experience as they had barely left the northern suburbs of Hobart. While running it at school rather than UTas has been easier for me, the students have been missing out. Now in the present one of the Grade 9/10 Teachers at my current place of employment, just talked about the titration competion yesterday to me and how good it would be to be part of it.

Well I now need to go back and read what everyone else has said.

Thanks

Andrew