Prof John Bradley, designer of the Radmaste Chemistry kit, a great inspiration to me and I know to many others, died in December 2022. I was reminded after I had heard him speak, being astonished that despite all his work in Africa and through UNESCO, the inclusion of his and other novel techniques over the past 40 years are not in regular use.

Many of us have provided these Small/Micro-scale practical chemistry practicals for teachers to demonstrate visible and quantifiable evidence for teaching chemistry to students, 11-18. These are often inexpensive, safe, often quick teaching activities, based on green and sustainable principles and more than often, provide direct evidence to challenge the misconceptions developed by students from previous lessons, the difficulty of the subject, and the application of mathematics. In the UK, we do not use a kit as they can be ultimately expensive and need maintenance., but use equipment from general online suppliers and educational suppliers. See From microscale to full-scale practicals | Ideas | RSC Education.

The traditional practical chemistry activities (eg, preparing copper(II) sulfate crystals from copper(II) oxide) are derived from the history of chemistry and history of chemical education, academic research, industrial methods, and chemical analysis. They seldom arise from chemical education research. The Small/Micro-scale practical chemistry activities put education first with the idea that students can be trained in the more traditional methods at a later date either at school or later in apprenticeships or higher education. That is called progression. See From microscale to full-scale practicals | Ideas | RSC Education.

If the Small/Micro-scale activities are so good, why are these methods not being used on a regular basis in the teaching of chemistry, taking place in our countries, included in examination questions, promoted in published exam specifications, and included in published/online textbooks and revision books?

So I am getting a feeling that it does not matter if your country

1. is just starting chemical education to 11 to 18-year-old students,

2. has an established curriculum in chemical education,

3. is reorganising the chemical education curriculum,

4. has very few facilities for practical chemistry in schools,

5. has modern up-to-date teaching laboratories in schools,

6. has established teacher training for chemistry teachers,

7. has poor teacher training for chemistry teachers,

8. has little technician support for chemistry teachers,

9. has strong technician support for chemistry teachers.

There is a barrier that stops the inclusion of small and microscale techniques in chemistry, STEM, and green chemistry procedures being incorporated in the syllabus alongside traditional practical work despite

1. the UNESCO aim to educate the world population in chemical matters and to provide the world with more chemists and chemical engineers,

2. the increasing cost of chemicals,

3. the increasing cost of equipment,

4. the increasing cost of waste disposal,

5. the increasing cost of installing mechanical ventilation, fume cupboards, electrical, gas, and water facilities in rooms to make them teaching laboratories and preparation rooms where chemicals are stored and prepared,

6. the increasing cost of teacher salaries,

7. the increasing cost of employing technical help (if any),

8. the decrease in the budget available for the subject,

9. the decrease in teaching time to allow for other subjects required by Government instruction,

10. the lack of relevant hands-on, continual professional development (CPD) for teachers in this area,

11. the poor recruitment and retention of chemistry teachers as the burden of the work initiates mental health problems,

12. the constraints of health and safety law, despite it being readily addressed by these methods.

The barrier is linked to issues in how the subject

1. Confuses chemistry education with the training of scientists and technicians in practical techniques

2. is examined,

3. is determined by government instruction,

4. is run by examination board managers,

5. experience of the examiners, question setters, markers, who have no laboratory facilities and not received information and experience in these new techniques and

6. experience of authors of text and revision books who have no laboratory facilities and not received information and experience in these new techniques

I can understand there is complexity in the setting of questions, the expense of training those involved, and a worry that students may be confused in relating a traditional procedure to a micro-procedure and it will disadvantage them. There is also government pressure in improving or maintaining high international education standards (PISA). What concerns me is that there is little will to consider new techniques.

In the UK there is a proposed initiative from the Royal Society of Chemistry to look into how traditional practical work can run alongside progressive practical work and NOT be a deterrent in the performance of the students in exams. Of course, if an institution is allowed to set its own exams, externally moderated, within the framework of the general syllabus, the inclusion of small and microscale techniques is not a problem. They can also be used in extended studies and examined projects.

I would like to ask for 3 requests information

1. Tell me if I am wrong. (To be honest, I hope I am and things are happening)

2. I would like to gather any information you have from your countries on the progress of these new forms of practical work in schools. The results will be shared.

3. Do you have any ideas or schemes to address these issues?

Thank you for your time in reading this and for any replies.