Chemical Education Today
Especially for High School Teachers by Diana S. Mason
Call for Action This issue of the Journal is one of the best I’ve seen as I complete my five-year commitment as Editor of the Secondary School Section. This release highlights many of the issues that have plagued chemistry teachers for years and gives us some solid research we can use to enhance our arguments. Several articles in this issue address the impact of students’ first chemistry courses whether at the high school or college level (see the articles starting on pp 1617, 1625, 1698, 1703, and 1712). Until this year, when I was asked to join the UNT QEP (University of North Texas Quality Enhancement Plan) team, I had always thought that there were many aspects of the study of chemistry that could be entered into the lower levels of Bloom’s classification (1). However, upon further review, I’m now of the mindset that most of the study of chemistry is at the middle to higher levels of this classification scheme. Cognitive Domains Yes, I agree that we (the professionals in the field) consider memorized information (like naming and defining) to all fit into cognitive level 1 (p 1625), but are these “skills” typical of Bloom’s intentions when he described the lower levels (1)? No! Take for example memorizing that SO42⫺ is a sulfate ion. This example is beyond the “name the ion” knowledge level; it requires students to combine and integrate their knowledge of elements, ions, oxidation states, and so on, and to combine this foundational knowledge into rearranged new knowledge, an aspect of higher-cognitive levels (e.g., synthesis). Is learning the definition of compound lower level? Again, no! Compound is a noun, adjective, or verb depending on its context with multiple meanings adding to the complexity well beyond what Bloom intended by defining as a representative example of the lower-level cognitive domain. As Nakibog˘lu and Tekin note, vernacular misconceptions (p 1712) result from scientific contexts of words being confused with the more common usages of a word. What we, the “experts”, consider simple cognitive-domain levels of Bloom are not equivalent to how they are seen by our novice students. Physics First; Biology Last How do we expect to teach our students chemistry before they have the foundational background needed especially when it comes to required algebraic fluency (p 1710)? The placement of the introduction to the complex subject of chemistry has been batted around for more than 100 years (p 1618) and the debate continues. Where do we place each year of science (let’s just stick with physics, chemistry, and biology) at the high school level? Which subject should be taught first? Which last? Should each subject be taught for only one year? We’ve been “studying” this conundrum for many years. The last formal and serious discussion of the spewww.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Secondary School Featured Articles 䊕 Chemistry, the Terminal Science? The Impact of the High School Science Order on the Development of U.S. Chemistry Education by Keith Sheppard and Dennis M. Robbins, p 1617. 䊕 JCE Classroom Activity: #84. Whatever Floats (or Sinks) Your Can by Michael J. Sanger, p 1632A. 䊕 High School Chemistry Content Background of Introductory College Chemistry Students and Its Association with College Chemistry Grades by Robert H. Tai, R. Bruce Ward, and Philip M. Sadler, p 1703.
cifics happened many years ago and now it is time to formally re-visit the issues. You will find in this issue an excellent analysis (p 1703) of data collected over four years from more than 100 introductory college science courses combining responses from 3521 student surveys. The most powerful of the predictors of these typical chemistry college students’ background was the level of high school mathematics completed. Also, as far as content-specific coverage goes, the students who reported frequently visiting stoichiometric relationships had their course performance (p 1709) more positively influenced than other students who reported spending minimal time studying stoichiometry. Success in chemistry, or the lack thereof, will determine your future career choice (p 1627, 1654). We owe it to our students to present the science curriculum in the best possible light. We can add summer enrichment courses (p 1698) and we can institute various course orderings. It is interesting to note that the “original intent of early curriculum writers was to position chemistry as the terminal [course]” in high school (physics followed by chemistry order was true until the turn of the 20th century) (p 1618). In most of today’s high schools, one would see the study of chemistry be “central” to the curriculum. In today’s world the logic of “physics first” is insightful and you have to acknowledge that today’s biology (a “capstone” course, p 1619) must make use of a substantial background in chemistry. With all this being said, I would like to call for the formation of a committee composed of teaching professionals who want to see a system established that is doable and advantageous for the future success of our students. A perfect place for this to happen is at the upcoming ChemEd 07 conference (see http://www.chem.unt.edu/ chemed07 for details) (accessed Sep 2006). Is anyone game to initiate the formation of this committee? Registration is open! Literature Cited 1. Bloom, B.; Englehart, M.; Furst, E.; Hill, W.; Krathwohl, D. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green: New York, 1956.
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1577
