In the Classroom
Experiential, Cooperative, and Study Abroad Education
edited by
Geoffrey Davies Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115
Chemical Education in Countries of the Former Soviet Union Evguenii I. Kozliak Department of Chemistry, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9024;
[email protected] Frequent calls for reform of the chemical education system (1, 2) demand a consideration of options and alternatives. The system of chemical education in the former Soviet Union (FSU) represents an interesting case study. On one hand, this system is similar to those of other European and Asian industrial countries, which are quite different from the American system in a number of respects. On the other hand, because of its long-time isolation, it accumulated a number of unique features. I had the experience of working and being educated within the Soviet system, although I am currently employed as a college professor in America. This paper is based on my personal experience as well as on interviews with other FSU students and scientists and on official documents. This study does not analyze particular details and specific differences between the chemical education systems in various FSU countries. The emphasis is on fundamental general features of this alternative system of chemical education, which with some minor changes still exists in FSU countries. A similar analysis of the Bulgarian chemical education system was conducted by Garkov (3). Sources and Methods A quantitative analysis of the FSU educational system is facilitated by its remarkable uniformity, which stems from the fact that the Soviet Union was rather centralized despite its formal political division. Analysis of college curricula in this paper is based on several undergraduate transcripts from major FSU universities. However, these transcripts are very representative because of the aforementioned system’s uniformity. Since all classes are mandatory and the schedule is rigid, transcripts are virtually identical for all mainstream students of a particular college in a particular year of graduation. Transcripts are also shown to have only minor year-to-year changes (see Tables 2, 3 below). The detailed high school science curriculum is published in the official programs that are issued by the corresponding country’s
Ministry of Education and are mandatory for all public schools. Secondary education programs for the Russian Federation are discussed in this study (4–6 ). Review of the System
Pre-college Experience The cornerstone of the FSU chemical education system is a solid high school background in mathematics and physical sciences as outlined in Table 1 (data taken from refs 4– 6 ). Education in the FSU starts at age six and includes 11 years of rigorous training. Upon the completion of 9th grade, each student takes a series of examinations that result in a nonbinding faculty recommendation whether he or she should take the final two grades in a regular or “technical” school. The curriculum in both is formally the same, but the grading in the latter is much more lenient. Similar standards pertain to remote rural schools. There is no freedom to choose classes in the FSU secondary education system, and the same curriculum is firmly established for all public schools except for a few private and specialized schools having more hours of either mathematics and science or foreign language in addition to the mandatory requirements of Table 1 (7 ). Therefore, virtually all students in the regular public high schools in the urban areas formally receive the same background. This significantly simplifies the task of college instructors, since they do not have to teach basics. There are no general classes in college algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or composition in FSU universities: these classes must be completed by every student in high school. A well-developed system of chemical olympiads for high school students complements their high school studies and helps in selecting and developing young talents (7). Three or four entrance examinations (usually in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and composition) held in
Table 1. Typical High School Background in Mathematics and Physical Sciences of an Urban Russian Student (4–6) Broad Area
Contact Hours
Class
Mathematics 136–170 h/year, Algebra 1140 in 6 years Trigonometry Geometry Calculus
870
Level upon Completion U.S. college algebra U.S. college class Two- and three-dimensional; rigorous proof of spostulates and theorems Pre-calculus and most of Calculus I
Chemistry
102–153 h/year, General 509 in 4 years Organic
Comparable to 1 semester of a 5-credit college General Chemistry class Comparable to a half-semester introductory college class for pre-nursing students without biochemistry
Physics
68–136 h/year, 493 in 5 years
Comparable to 2 semesters of college physics, but calculus is used only sparingly
Classical Mechanics; Electricity and Oscillations, including alternating current
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom Table 2. The Chemistr y Major Sequence in Moscow State University Class Fall
Spring
Contact hours/year
Inorganic Chemistry Inorganic Chemistr y lab Mathematical Analysisa Analytical Geometr y — Computers/Programming — — English Political Classb Physical Education —
Inorganic Chemistry Inorganic Chemistr y lab Mathematical Analysisa — Linear Algebra Computers/Programming Physics (electricity) Physics lab English Political Class b Physical Education Research in Inorganic Chem.
204 (204) 240 (240) 172 (204) 54 (54) 48 (48) 102 (102) 64 (64) 0 (50) 120 (136) 120 (120) 136 (136) N/A (thesis)
2
Analytical Chemistr y Analytical Chemistr y lab Mathematical Analysisa Probability and Statistics — Physics (waves/optics) — — English Political Classb Physical Education — — —
Analytical Chemistry Analytical Chemistr y lab Mathematical Analysisa — Mathematical Physics — Physics lab Radiochemistr y lab English Political Classb Physical Education Theoretical Mechanics Research in Analytical Chem. Military Class (men only)
136 (136) 254 (254) 120 (120) 54 (54) 48 (48) 72 (72) 50 (54) 0 (36) 120 (136) 126 (136) 136 (136) 48 (48) N/A (thesis) 1 day/wk (0)
3
Organic Chemistry Organic Chemistr y lab Physics lab Crystal Chemistry c Basics of Quantum Mechanics Molecular Spectroscopy — English Political Classb — — Military Class (men only) —
Organic Chemistry Organic Chemistr y lab — — — Structure of Matter — Physical Chemistr y English Political Class b Physical Chemistr y lab Chem. Basis of Bioprocesses Military Class (men only) Research in Organic Chem.
204 (172) 234 (272) 54 (0) 48 (54) 54 (54) 32 (32) 72 (72) 96 (96) 104 (72) 136 (136) 64 (64) 0 (45) 1 day/week N/A (thesis)
4
Physical Chemistr y — Physical Chemistr y lab — Colloid Chemistr y Colloid Chemistr y lab Radiochemistr y lab — — Political Classb — Histor y of Chemistr y — Research in Phys. Chem. Military Class (men only) — —
— Polymer Chemistr y d — Polymer Chemistr y labd — — — Chemical Technology d Chemical Technology lab d Political Classb Macrokinetics e — Patents and Basics of Law — Military Class (men only) Upper- level classes Upper - level lab
108 (108) 54 (51) 72 (72) 60 (60) 36 (36) 54 (54) 36 (0) 60 (60) 60 (60) 136 (120) 24 (0) 24 (18) 30 (36) N/A (thesis) 1 day/week variable variable
Senior Research Political Class b Upper - level lab Upper- level class
Senior Research — — —
N/A 54 (0) var., ca. 264 114–172
Year 1
5
NOTE: Classes graded S/U are italicized; classes related to physical chemistry are in boldface. Translation of some class titles is not literal, to reflect the content more accurately. A few unimportant S/U classes have been omitted. a Same as calculus, with emphasis on proving theorems. First semester is similar to Intermediate Analysis 1 in the Mathematics Department. Curriculum includes limits, differentiation, integration, differential equations, and multiple integrals. b Political classes were gradually replaced in 1990s by social science courses (Philosophy, History of the Fatherland, Economy, Sociology, etc.). cCrystal Chemistry was an S/U-graded class until 1988. d Currently taught in the fall to give room for specialized divisional classes. e Macrokinetics was eliminated around 1988. These hours were then used for teaching Chemical Basis of Biological Processes.
the corresponding college departments result in a competitive selection of students from an applicant pool. Failure in any one of these entrance exams automatically precludes a student from being accepted. Applicants are selected on the basis of the sum of their entrance examination grades. It is noteworthy that the equivalent of the American examination grade “A” in the FSU system assumes a flawless performance; one or two small errors result in a “B”; and one big mistake or several smaller ones constitute a “C” grade. This also applies to college grades.
Undergraduate Education: General Features Specific features of the FSU undergraduate education that differ from the American system are listed in the Box. The academically strong high school background logically leads to some specific unique features of the FSU undergraduate education system (Box, features 1–3). There is no need to teach general chemistry to freshmen who had it in high school and successfully passed their entrance examinations. Nevertheless, the first class in the college curriculum, Inorganic Chemistry (Table 2) contains a large amount of general chemistry review. Features 3–6 in the Box are related to the culture and reflect the heritage of a totalitarian political system. This is further illustrated by the large number of classes and contact hours (Table 2). Although students have three or four opportunities to pass any examination, failing just one class means dismissal. Finally, features 6–11 in the Box reflect the fact that the FSU university system does not lead to what we call a bachelor’s degree in the United States. A university degree in the FSU is based on a five-year curriculum that includes writing and defending a thesis. Therefore, FSU undergraduate degrees are more characteristic of the American master’s degree than of the bachelor’s. The system is aimed at producing not just general chemists but, rather, broadly educated certified specialists who have expertise in one of the areas of chemistry. This explains the highly specialized curriculum with no flexibility in the choice of classes. The Chemistry major sequence at Moscow State University (MSU) is shown in Table 2. The first set of contact hour data represents the old Soviet curriculum (transcripts from 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1992 are used; some details might vary from year to year). The second set (in parentheses) represents the current curriculum (transcripts from 1998). Comparison of these two sets shows that the basic approach to teaching chemistry, Specific Features of FSU Undergraduate Education 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
No general chemistry (physics, mathematics) for majors. No optional classes—all classes are mandatory except three senior classes. No general education classes except foreign language, physical education, and social science (political) classes. No option to drop a class. A department within the university has to be chosen before the entrance exams and cannot be switched afterwards. All exams are oral. Lecture and exams are more theoretically oriented (the understanding of major concepts in specific detail is required). Five-year curriculum. Yearly mini-theses (in inorganic, analytical, organic, and physical chemistry). Specialization in the second half of the fourth and fifth years. Final thesis (with a defense before a committee).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
871
In the Classroom
(Table 2), are graded on the “Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory” basis. However, an unsatisfactory grade in one of these classes after a few consecutive failures is also considered as a ground for a student’s dismissal from school.
as well as the core chemistry curriculum of the Soviet system, has changed very little (of course, political classes have been eliminated or replaced with history and sociology courses). Some classes have been shuffled around; however, the total number of hours for similar courses remains virtually the same (Table 3, columns 2, 3). From the very first semester, students are subjected to heavy loads in terms of both hours and concepts. Hours listed in Table 2 are much higher than students normally experience in the USA. The actual class load varies from 36 to 42 hours per week, which implies 6–8 academic contact hours per day, 6 days a week. Virtually all science classes include a discussion section along with lecture. The laboratory component of major chemistry courses includes not only experiments but also long discussion sections (taught by faculty members) and a few oral midterm checkpoints called “colloquia”. Passing colloquia is mandatory, and they are usually tough to pass (roughly 1/3 of the students require two or more complete reiterations). They are somewhat similar to American midterm exams, but they also resemble preliminary oral exams for the American M.S. degree. However, the only basis for the letter grade (“digit grade” in the FSU) is a final oral examination. In these oral exams, students are expected not only to apply the concepts, but also to explain them to instructors. Not all classes are equal in the FSU curriculum. Laboratories and courses of secondary importance, such as Radiochemistry, Theoretical Mechanics, and Mathematical Physics
Undergraduate Education: Academic Features A few academic features of the FSU undergraduate curriculum stand out conspicuously. A large number of mathematics classes are offered. In combination with an extensive high school background, this provides a solid basis for development of problem-solving skills and abstract thinking. Chemistry students in the major FSU universities have to take three semesters of mathematical analysis (including calculus), as well as a few other mathematics classes that, in the USA, are normally required only for mathematics majors (Tables 2, 3). Yet, in major FSU universities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev), the best mathematics-oriented students are selected for a “theoretical” group with even more rigorous education in math. This involves taking both Calculus and Quantum Physics/Chemistry on a much higher level, and also studying additional mathematics topics such as Fourier and functional analysis, and group theory. Some of these topics are taught in additional courses. However, other special topics are covered in existing classes, which are taught separately from those for the bulk of the students and by different instructors. The MSU chemistry curriculum is being developed toward the creation of specialized groups. For instance, another group, specializing in chemical computations, has a few ad-
Table 3. Chemistry Curriculum in Chemistry Departments of Three Premiere FSU Universities and an Elite College of Higher Education Total Hours a Class
Moscow State University
College of Higher Education
Kiev University
1992
1998
1995
1992
1981
Mathematical Analysis
292
324
504
344
390
Other Mathematics and Computing
306
306
252
136
50
Inorganic Chemistry (with the lab)
444
444
288
358
322
—
—
—
100
48
Analytical Chemistry (with the lab)
390
390
126
324
372
358.b
Organic Chemistry (with the lab)
438
444
396
336
320
348
Physical Chemistry (with the lab)
340
340
335
324
324
320.c
Polymer Chemistry
114
111
162
84
84
—
90
90
—
102
102
72
Coordination Chemistry
Colloid Chemistry (with the lab) Electrochemistry
1998 344 (total) 358 —
—
—
—
—
—
88
102
102
144
—
—
64
Molecular Spectroscopy (Structure of Molecules)
72
72
72
136
108
86
Crystal Chemistry
48
54
72
54
54
—
Chemical Technology and Ecology
180
120
108
164
104
54
Physics (Total)
256
Quantum Physics and Chemistry
276
256
180
276
390
Applied Spectroscopy
—
—
108
140
72
—
Radiochemistry
36
36
—
—
36
82
Pedagogy (Total)
—
—
—
90
200
—
Biochemistry
—
45
72
—
—
—
344
344
432
276
340
272
Foreign Language aThe
dates indicate graduation dates. 142 hours of Physical and Chemical Methods of Analysis. cIncludes 80 hours of Kinetics as a separate class. bIncludes
872
St.-Petersburg University
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
ditional classes such as “Calculation Methods” (68 hours, spring of the second year) and “Mathematical Methods in Chemistry” (120 hours, spring of the third year) taught at the expense of some laboratory hours in analytical and organic chemistry. The other specialized groups are in radiochemistry, polymers, and material science. The only inorganic chemistry class is taught in the freshman year, well ahead of physical chemistry. This course is taught at a level equivalent to what in the USA is considered Intermediate Inorganic Chemistry. Symmetry groups are taught only in the third year (Crystal Chemistry) and thus are not used as a teaching aid for inorganic chemistry. FSU experts in chemical education apparently believe that this level is enough for the bulk of the students and those specializing in inorganic chemistry would catch up while taking upperdivision classes during the fourth or fifth year of education. However, the molecular orbital and crystal field theories are taught in this class on the non-calculus level. A similar approach is used in teaching physical chemistry. Quantum mechanics is taught as two short S/U-graded classes only (Theoretical and Quantum Mechanics). Since just barely passing is required and no connection to spectroscopy is emphasized, students often do not pay much attention to the content of these classes. This results in serious problems for those teaching Molecular Spectroscopy (officially called “Structure of Molecules” in MSU). Moreover, Molecular Spectroscopy is taught concurrently with Quantum Mechanics. As a result, spectroscopy has to be taught on a very phenomenological level (except for the above-mentioned specialized “theoretical” group). Basically, the Soviet chemical education system gives up on teaching quantum mechanics/chemistry to all students except the potential theorists (5–10% of the total student pool). Instead of Quantum, the physical chemistry sequence, in addition to two core classes covering thermodynamics and kinetics, includes a number of phenomenological courses related to experimental physical chemistry (in boldface type in Table 2). The most important are Polymer Chemistry and Colloid Chemistry. These classes are taught using some unique textbooks, particularly, in Colloid Chemistry (8). This class in Colloid Chemistry deals with a number of important topics illustrating basic physicochemical concepts—for example, micelles (9). Physical chemistry in this and other related classes is considered an experimental science and is intertwined with all other areas of chemistry. An interesting approach is used in teaching organic chemistry in MSU. During the first month of the class, a mini-course is taught on nomenclature, functional groups, and basic reactions. This so-called “introductory concentrate” followed by a rigorous colloquium allows students to recall what they have studied in high school (two semesters, see Table 1) and provides a solid basis for a higher level of instruction during the rest of the class.
Upper-Level Undergraduate Education Upper-level undergraduate education (last three semesters of the curriculum) typically includes two to five lecture courses and one laboratory. Classes vary in each chemistry department’s division, which is to be selected by a student. Besides taking classes, each student conducts research with a selected faculty member, which is followed by a thesis defense.
Research is also mandatory in the lower grades. However, it differs from that in the upper grades; instead of actually conducting exploratory research, students are assigned to perform a specific job under a mentor’s close supervision. For example, in organic chemistry, a usual assignment includes a three-step synthesis. The results are defended as yearly theses called “course works”. Freshmen have this course work in inorganic chemistry; sophomores, in analytical chemistry; etc. (Table 2). In this way, students not only gain some research background in all four main divisions of chemistry, but also learn the basics of scientific writing and presentation. In addition, some outstanding students conduct undergraduate research beyond the “course work” requirements. No formal credits are given for this additional work; however, a student’s participation is rewarded during graduate school application.
Other Premier Schools Comparison of the Chemistry curriculum in MSU with contemporary curricula in three other premier institutions, College of Higher Education (Moscow), St. Petersburg, and Kiev State Universities, is provided in Table 3. The basic Chemistry sequence is essentially and conceptually the same in all three universities. It appears to have changed very little with time in its principal aspects (shown for Moscow and Kiev Universities), except for the appearance of short biochemistry classes in more recent transcripts. The absence or presence of some nonessential classes and variations in contact hours are due to the bias of a particular school (Electrochemistry in St. Petersburg, or Coordination Chemistry in Kiev). The College of Higher Education was founded in the early 1990s as an attempt to create a Western-type college. This explains the presence of quantum chemistry in the core curriculum, but this College is just about the only large FSU higher education institution teaching this class rigorously for all students. Kiev State University offers a few educational classes at the expense of some physics and mathematics. Graduate Education FSU graduate chemical education is also rather different from that in the USA. A broad and diversified undergraduate education with research experience makes most graduate classes redundant. Also, the preselection of graduate school applicants who apply for government support (considering the state of the economy in FSU countries, it is virtually essential) is based on undergraduate transcripts. There are two or three entrance examinations (usually physical, organic, analytical, or inorganic chemistry, a foreign language, and one examination based on undergraduate political–social science classes). Typically, only one or two highly specialized graduatelevel classes are taught in a specific division. Students also have to pass examinations in philosophy and one of the main foreign languages, the corresponding classes being offered. Except for formal yearly progress reports to the faculty of their division, only the student’s mentor exerts any control on his or her research and education progress. After 3 years, students are expected to defend their dissertations before a permanent divisional committee of 10 to 25 members, made up of distinguished faculty and researchers from many local colleges and research centers. Having three to six publications or presentations is required.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
873
In the Classroom
Discussion There are obvious deficiencies in the FSU chemical education system. The bulk of the FSU education is old fashioned, with little emphasis on the latest achievements (delayed until senior level and graduate classes) and with little quantum chemistry and biochemistry (Tables 2, 3). This lack of emphasis on more modern concepts applies especially to physical and inorganic chemistry. However, this also greatly affects the teaching of organic and analytical chemistry, since spectroscopy is taught rather superficially. Also, there are no general classes like Instrumental Analysis and Spectral Methods of Identification in MSU, and only limited classes of this kind are offered in other premier schools (Table 3). These classes are taught only for students specializing in analytical or organic chemistry. An explanation for this is a shortage of modern instruments. Nevertheless, despite these deficiencies, the system has worked well and produced a steady supply of well-qualified chemists. Therefore, some of the specific features of the FSU education system are worth considering. For instance, teaching physical chemistry on a broad experimental basis results in a very interesting outcome: the bulk of students (even those who are not very proficient in mathematics) do not end up disliking physical chemistry. Chemistry departments do not seem to have problems recruiting students to physical chemistry for both upper-division undergraduate and graduate studies. It has been my experience teaching Quantum Mechanics in the United States that this class greatly improves the background of those students who understand it well. Unfortunately, this usually pertains to only 10–25% of the class. The rest of the students, because of their insufficient background in mathematics, have substantial problems with the course. The FSU system sequesters this “mathematical minority” in special “theoretical” groups, which have produced a number of excellent theoretical chemists and spectroscopists. These students probably correspond to that fraction of the total pool who would understand and like Quantum in the U.S. system. FSU graduate education in chemistry, in my opinion, is inferior to U.S. graduate education. Key missing components are comprehensive and cumulative examinations that, along with graduate classes, provide a creative and competitive environment in U.S. universities and contribute to the students’ self-studying in broad areas of chemistry. Yet, a few features of the FSU graduate education system are worth considering. One is the broad graduate defense committees made up of a number of experts from different institutions. This precludes graduate committees’ becoming self-contained, maintains higher standards, and promotes communication among scientists. Another interesting feature is a Ph.D. defense requirement of publishing or at least presenting research results at the national level. This would also help to maintain high standards in the smaller U.S. colleges. One more feature of the FSU education system may, perhaps, be used in graduate but not undergraduate courses in the United States: the substitution of oral colloquia for one of the written midterm examinations. Some fundamental issues are worth considering in terms of the scope of chemical education. Several of my colleagues and I feel that chemists educated in the FSU have a broad background in chemistry that often disguises a lack of detailed 874
knowledge in specific areas. This characteristic helped many FSU chemists adjust to the dramatic changes that occurred upon the breakdown of the Soviet Union and find their place in the Western job market. I tend to ascribe this broad background and flexibility to a better high school education, which provides a solid foundation for further building up an individual’s chemical knowledge. The rigorous teaching of general chemistry in high school affords the luxury of teaching more chemistry classes in the undergraduate college curriculum, such as colloid chemistry, polymer chemistry, and radiochemistry (Table 2). The FSU system of secondary education deserves further study; it is rather efficient and yet inexpensive enough that even relatively poor FSU countries can afford it. One of the pivotal questions for the reform of chemical education in the United States is whether it is feasible to teach more mathematics and science classes in high school for the bulk of the students. The numbers in Table 1 provide an argument for a positive answer to this question. However, introduction of more rigorous secondary science education in the USA is complicated by cultural, historical, monetary, and legal issues. The fundamental difference between the two education systems is that in the USA students themselves are in part responsible for the scope of their high school education, whereas in the former Eastern block countries the same high school curriculum is mandatory for virtually every student. Arguments pro and contra for both systems are well known and discussed in detail by Garkov (3). Perhaps it is not necessary to teach all U.S. high school students as much mathematics and science as is listed in Table 1. However, we need to make U.S. college-bound students more competitive in comparison to foreign students of a similar age. Garkov provides arguments that teaching general chemistry in college and upper grades of high school may be too late for many U.S. students (3). One way to improve the science background of U.S. college-bound students would be to let them declare their science major. It should be done as early as possible, perhaps even in middle school. Instead of taking many electives in various areas as they are encouraged to do now, they would be able to concentrate on mathematics and physical sciences. This system is now working de facto for most outstanding U.S. students who end up taking college classes for high school credits. The problem is that many excellent students do not realize how much they hurt themselves by delaying taking what they may perceive as “hard” classes. In addition, most U.S. college-bound students presently are not forced or even encouraged to specialize earlier, and so most of them stay on a regular track. This is an inherent downside of the freedom of choice. Therefore, if producing a steady supply of qualified science students becomes a top national priority in education, we may consider boldly encouraging, virtually forcing, prospective college-bound science students to specialize in mathematics and physical science earlier. In other words, instituting “majors” in science and mathematics in high school and even in middle school should be accompanied by counseling prospective science and engineering students and providing a rationale for this being their best route. Realization of this would require an adjustment of both the counseling philosophy and state graduation requirements to allow for more narrow specialization in mathematics and science.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
There is one potential downside to the rigorous high school curriculum mentioned by Ayas and Demirbas (10): a poor instructor may permit the development of misconceptions on difficult topics. According to my experience, this indeed often occurs in the FSU. However, it is more than compensated for by the development of problem solving and abstract thinking due to the large number of high school calculus, trigonometry, physics, and chemistry classes. This is extremely helpful in preparation for college. A similar relationship appears to exist in the USA. A strong correlation between a student’s high school background in mathematics and success in college chemistry has been recognized (11). The lack of correlation between the amount of chemistry in high school and success in college chemistry reported by Krajcik and Yager (12) may be attributed to inconsistent quality in the teaching of high school chemistry (13). In addition, “light”, one-semester high school chemistry classes may just not provide enough time for students to comprehend chemistry, whereas four years of FSU high school chemistry (with a slower pace and enough time to reiterate some important topics) would certainly accomplish this goal one way or another. An additional benefit of mandating college-bound students to take the same rigorous level of high school chemistry in the FSU is the mitigation of freshman heterogeneity in background, which appears to be a significant source of early problems in the U.S. system (14 ). One approach to correcting misconceptions resulting from poor high school preparation or freshman chemistry may be to teach a one-month minicourse of fundamentals in the first month of organic chemistry, as has been done in MSU. This is another unique feature of the FSU system worth considering. However, this makes sense as a reiteration only if all students are exposed to the basics of organic chemistry in both high school and the first year of college. A similar approach may be applied to teaching general chemistry for students with some prior high school background. Another advantage of FSU chemists’ background is the amount of mathematics and physics taken as undergraduate classes. In the United States we tend to emphasize the usefulness of mathematics for problem solving in general chemistry classes (11) and the application of calculus for physical chemistry. However, in my opinion, the importance of mathematics goes well beyond this simple application. Taking mathematics classes beyond a critical level appears to provide the additional groundwork needed for developing abstract thinking and logic, which tremendously helps both teaching and learning in higher level chemistry classes. Unfortunately, it is difficult to advise U.S. undergraduate chemistry students to take more classes in mathematics and physics because the ACS-recommended sequence is already quite congested. Thus it appears that the most logical way to accomplish this is to teach U.S. college-bound students
more mathematics and physics at the high school level, as emphasized throughout this paper. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the following FSU scientists for reading the manuscript and providing their time for the interviews and transcripts: N. Gerasimchuk and O. Gerasimchuk (North Dakota State University, Chemistry Department), D. Papkovsky and N. Papkovskaya (University of Ireland, Cork), Yu. Khayt, I. Smoliakova, and E. Tyapochkin (University of North Dakota, Chemistry Department), Yu. Kryschenko (University of Utah), Y. Grytsyuk (Moscow State University), and those Russians who chose to remain anonymous. My special thanks to Dmitriy V. Korol’kov, the Dean of the Chemistry Dept. of St.-Petersburg University for providing a full and updated information on the chemistry curriculum, and to T. A. Ballentine (University of North Dakota, Chemistry Department) for his terrific help throughout this project. I also express my utmost gratitude to two American chemists for reading the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions: M. R. Hoffman (University of North Dakota) and Ch. Archer (Moorhead State University, Minnesota). Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Scimone, A.; Scimone, A. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1153–1156. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 141. Garkov, V. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1083–1085. Ministry of People’s Education of the USSR. Programs for Secondary Education Institutions. Chemistry; Prosveshchenie: Moscow, 1988; extended and approved for further use by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, 1992. Ministry of People’s Education of the USSR. Programs for Secondary Education Institutions. Physics and Astronomy; Prosveshchenie: Moscow, 1991; extended and approved for further use by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, 1994. Ministry of People’s Education of the USSR. Programs for Secondary Education Institutions. Mathematics; Prosveshchenie: Moscow, 1994. Berdonosov, S. S.; Kuz’menko, N. E.; Kharisov, B. I. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1086–1088. Shchukin, E. D.; Pertsov, A. V.; Amelina, E. A. Colloid Chemistry; Moscow State University Publishing: Moscow, 1982. Dominguez, A.; Fernandez, A.; Gonzalez, N.; Iglesias, E.; Montenegro, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1227–1231. Ayas, A.; Demirbas, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 518–521. Spencer, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1150–1153. Krajcik, J. S.; Yager, R. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 433–435. Sanger, M.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 532–536. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 253.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 7 July 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
875
