Chemical Education: Past, Present, and Future - ACS Publications

Viewpoints: Chemists on Chemistry Chemical Education: Past, Present, and Future J. J. Lagowski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712

Chemical Education: Past, Present, and Future

425

Outline

Introduction The Academic–Industry Connection Looking Back The Curriculum Certification, the Role of CPT The Teaching/Learning Environment Pedagogy Digital Technology Learning Theory The Current State of Chemical Education The FIPSE Lectures in Chemistry Scholarship in Chemical Education Assessment Looking Forward 21st Century Chemical Education Literature Cited

WAn enhanced version of this article with multimedia materials is available on JCE Online to Journal subscribers at http://JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1998/Apr/abs425.html.

Viewpoints: Chemists on Chemistry is supported by a grant from The Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.

C

hemistry has always been a practical discipline. For example, the “chemical arts” reach back to antiquity with respect to the use of metals. Worked gold objects are known from the earliest times, the so-called Neolithic Age, but what we now call the chemistry of gold may not have been important in the ancients’ use of the metal because it is often found as the native metal. Similarly, copper, which also can be found in its native state, was worked by American aborigines. Copper objects appear with the earliest remains (ca. 3500 B.C.E.) from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The invention of bronze—an alloy of copper and tin— represents an important event in the evolution of the chemical arts because elemental tin is not found in nature, and to make bronze requires the winning of tin from an appropriate ore Ancient Chinese bronze followed by the alloying procedures. ritual libation vessel, Zhou Now that’s chemistry in the modern Dynasty. Collection of sense! (albeit with little theory). Still, Marjorie Gapp and Grethat’s the way much of chemistry has gory Tobias. Photograph developed historically—without by Gregory Tobias. Courmuch theory to guide it. The earliest tesy of the Chemical Heritage Foundation. bronze pieces have been dated at about 3000 B.C.E. Interestingly, Egyptian and Mesopotamian bronzes sometimes contain lead in place of tin, and occasionally even antimony (as do some early Chinese bronzes). The point to this short discourse on the acquisition and refinement of the chemical arts in the context of the use of metals by humans is that the antecedents of modern chemistry have always been intertwined with the practical aspects of human development. In fact, a similar conclusion can be drawn from the history of the use of glass, glazes, and ceramic colorants.

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 75 No. 4 April 1998 • Journal of Chemical Education

425

Viewpoints: Chemists on Chemistry

Things did not change much as our understanding of chemistry became more or less organized as a discipline in the 18th century. Indeed, the chemical arts were an important component of the industrial revolution, which is often described in terms of the mechanization of production systems focused on the manufacture of consumer goods. The modern chemical industry and the industrial revolution were born intertwined in Great Britain at the end of the 18th century. Steam-powered machinery changed the world and, almost immediately and dramatically, wrought a revolution in cotton textile production. That revolution would have been incomplete without inexpensive and effective chemicals for bleaching, dyeing, and cleaning fibers and fabrics. British chemists and entrepreneurs pioneered the large-scale manufacture of sulfuric acid, soda, chlorine bleach, and synthetic dyestuffs. The marriage of the “chemical arts” and societal usefulness was consummated, irrevocably. Society’s current needs for modern materials—plastics, semiconductors, composites, and better concrete—continue the tradition. The Academic–Industry Connection The links between industry’s needs for “trained chemists” and the academic world were established late in the 19th century. Before World War I, a bachelor’s degree was sufficient to provide the basis of success in the chemical industries. By 1900, American colleges were awarding about 1,300 bachelor’s degrees in chemistry each year. In earlier days, chemistry had been taught as a genteel discipline for the mind, without much success. But by the end of the 19th century it was clear that a knowledge of chemistry could provide jobs for new graduates, not only in teaching but in the developing chemical industry. The German pattern of education in chemistry stressed the relationships of the professorate with technology and industry. Nernst invented a light bulb. Haber developed the ammonia synthesis. Linde built refrigeration and air liquefaction equipment. In contrast, some say that the profound dichotomy between academic chemistry and its practical application has its roots in the career of Ira Remsen (1846–1927). Remsen is noted as a great pioneer in research as a tool in the education of chemists (chemical education). He was known for stressing the “morally uplifting value of graduate education” and the importance of “pure science” rather than practical application. Yet his own relationship with industry increased as his students found employment there. Apparently, industry realized that graduate training was good preparation for its technically oriented needs, a condition that still obtains today.

Looking Back The Curriculum The struggle to define the form of the undergraduate degree in chemistry is as old as are chemistry departments. A chemistry degree unconnected to the practical aspects of the subject (that is, as it was packaged as a “genteel discipline”) was no more marketable than a degree in English literature. The recognition at the turn of this century that a good academic experience in chemistry was sufficient for a job in the chemical industry can be reasonably imagined as the start of the struggle to define the nature of the undergraduate degree. At that (perhaps unfocused) point, departments of chemistry began producing baccalaureate-degree holders who could enter the burgeoning job market of the chemical industry and who could get jobs in academe provided they also earned an advanced degree. The increasing demand for graduatedegree holders in the chemical industry also fueled undergraduate programs to the point where, today, some believe that they represent the “minor leagues” for professionally oriented graduate programs. Thus became clear the academic struggle between a professional degree that would train chemists and the academic program designed to educate students using chemistry as a vehicle. That struggle still persists. For an interesting current manifestation of this ongoing debate, see the papers of the symposium entitled “Education for Industry”, presented at the 212th (1996) National ACS meeting (1). Clearly, the shape of the curriculum—that group of courses offered by an institution designed to satisfy the requirements for an undergraduate major—depends upon the use to which the chemistry degree is to be put. Currently, the undergraduate degree serves at least two masters: training and education. The undergraduate curriculum attempts to support graduate programs in chemistry as well as those in allied fields such as molecular biology. Is it surprising that considerable controversy arises concerning the details of the undergraduate curriculum? Superimposed on this tension is the difficulty of teaching students about progress in the discipline when, for example, progress could be defined as anything from the theoretical basis of magnetic resonance techniques to the standard instrumentation for making such measurements. This aspect of chemical education reflects the need to incorporate continuously new discoveries and research results into the curriculum. For example, the standard description of the allotropes of carbon had to be altered about ten years ago when the first of the fullerenes was discovered (2). Teaching about chemistry must accommodate to the description of a moving target because the discipline is constantly evolving in unpredictable (although not unknowable) ways.

One of the Journal of Chemical Education ’s original functions was… …to encourage community of effort in any instituted reforms, furnishing a medium through which significant reports, studies, and experiments will be given wide circulation.


The importance of curricular issues in chemical education is apparent from the contents of the first volume of this Journal, which appeared in 1924. Among the many functions of the Journal, its first editor, Neil E. Gordon, indicated the following as one of the four “most important” (3)… …to encourage community of effort in any instituted reforms, furnishing a medium through which significant reports, studies, and experiments will be given wide circulation.

That first volume contained articles on a wide spectrum of curricular issues still being hotly contested. The following titles (each with a short commentary) are illustrative. “Educating Everybody” (4). A description of the philosophy behind the formation of Science Service, which was established in Washington in 1921 for the “purpose of making science more accessible to everybody”. “What We Teach Our Freshmen In Chemistry” (5). The results of a survey of 27 colleges and universities, which included the identity of the texts used and the scope and depth of coverage of certain subjects. “The Response of High School Pupils to Chemical Education” (6). A discussion of the nature of chemistry instruction in high schools. “What Kind of Research Is Essential to Good Teaching?” (7). An early argument for the need for university undergraduate chemistry teachers to engage in some research, but to recognize that “the profession of teaching be given its proper recognition”. “A Plea for a Pedagogical Scrapheap in Chemistry” (8). This is a tirade on the content of current text books. The point of view is illustrated by the following quote from that article. “Professor Hart, in ‘Random Recollections of an Old Professor’, Chemical Age 1922, p 404, has this to say: ‘My experience in teaching chemistry has been an extended one; so long a one that I feel I have a right to an opinion. For most of the text books on the subject that have been written I have nothing but contempt. How intelligent men can put such treatises in the hands of beginners, beginners understand me, is beyond my comprehension. Most of them shoot far over the head of the average student, leaving behind stupefaction and discouragement. Some of the most eminent chemists have written the stupidest books for beginners. The worst feature of the whole business is that the authors do not see their blunder when you point it out to them. They persist in thinking that what is clearly perceptible to them after years of intensive training also must be perceptible to men who have had no training; they are quite unable to place themselves in the other fellow’s shoes. As teachers in colleges and universities we do not realize that between the spring of the student’s high school graduation and the fall of his entrance in college there is a very short summer, barely three months, and no marvelous transformation has taken place. Many of us would be better teachers if we did not know so much.’”

“The Need for Trained Teachers of Chemistry” ( 9). A description by a respected inorganic research chemist of a university curriculum for high school chemistry teachers. In effect, one of the early descriptions of the basis for teacher certification. “A College Course in Analytical Chemistry” (10). A description of a general chemistry course incorporating analytical chemistry that is a seamless amalgamation of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

“The High School Chemistry Course vs. the College Requirement” (11). A discussion of the relationship of the content of high school chemistry courses with that of a typical college course. “Meeting the Needs of the Freshman Chemistry Class” (12). This paper deals with “the question of sectioning General Chemistry so as to take care of those who have had high school chemistry”. “A Report of the Committee of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society on the Correlation of High School and College Chemistry” (13). This report is a detailed analysis, subject by subject, of the recommended contents of high school and college chemistry courses. “The Chemist: His Education and His Job” (14 ). A discussion by the chief chemist of the Atmospheric Nitrogen Corporation of his perceptions of how an undergraduate education in chemistry can benefit students entering industry. “Physical Chemistry for Undergraduates” (15). An argument for including instruction in physical chemistry—both theory and laboratory work—in the training of undergraduates. “Chemical Engineering Education” (16 ). A description of the “ideal curriculum” for chemical engineers. “The Teaching of Agricultural Chemistry” (17). A plea for a chemistry course for students interested in agriculture that is not “couched in ‘words-of-one-syllable’”. “The Course in High School Chemistry” (18). A description of a high school chemistry course suitable for university students. “A Plea for Rationally Coordinated Courses in Analytical Chemistry” (19). Suggestions on how to meld qualitative analysis with quantitative analysis.

It was clear after the first volume that the genie had been let out of the bottle. Inspection of any subsequent volume suggests that the struggle to define the undergraduate curriculum and how it relates to precollege chemistry instruction and graduate programs is still with us. The most recent attempt to focus on curricular matters was the creation of a feature entitled “The Forum” (20), which was developed as a response to the broad spectrum of initiatives by the National Science Foundation designed to improve undergraduate chemistry instruction. Certification, the Role of CPT In 1936, the Committee on Professional Training (CPT) was established by the ACS as a focus for curricular issues in the training (not the education) of chemists at the undergraduate and the graduate levels (21). Bylaw III, 3(h) of the ACS provides for the Society to sponsor the CPT as an “activity for the approval of undergraduate professional training in chemistry”. In effect, CPT certifies educational programs for the professional training of chemists and, presumably, of the students who successfully pass through such programs. The goals of the ap-


427


proval program are described as: •

• •

Promoting and assisting in the development of high standards of excellence in all aspects of postsecondary chemical education and undertaking studies important to their maintenance. Collecting and making available information concerning trends and developments in modern chemical education. Cooperating with the Society and other professional and educational groups having mutual interests and concerns.

The Teaching/Learning Environment Pedagogy The art of teaching (i.e., pedagogy) has had to change as the details of the subject change. Laboratory instruction has traditionally been an important component of chemical education even though little evidence exists concerning its usefulness as a vehicle to help students learn. Early laboratory instruction—before World War II—primarily consisted of having students perform experiments on synthesis and analysis. Instrumentation dramatically changed the way chemistry is done by professional chemists, and that change was mirrored in the undergraduate curriculum. As the power of research instruments to solve chemical problems grew, the pages of this Journal began to reflect the formal instruction of undergraduates in instrumental techniques. In 1946, the first description of a course designed to train undergraduate students appeared in this Journal because “the number and variety of instruments used in chemical analysis [has] become so great…” (22). By 1950, teaching chemists were beginning to discuss the “problems” associated with instruments in a college chemistry department (23). Among these were the potential applications of a particular instrument (research or teaching)—the eternal debate; the quality of the instrument; and its versatility. Courses focused on electronics were described (24). Many observers claim that the enormous strides in understanding the details of the microscopic behavior of molecular species would never have been made without the widespread use of instrumentation, especially the various forms of spectroscopy. And commensurate with the close relationship of the undergraduate chemistry curriculum to the research objectives of graduate programs, instruments of varying kinds and sophistication became a part of the undergraduate curriculum. Thus, the relationship of laboratory experiences, which some believe to be the heart of chemistry, to the lecture part of the chemistry curriculum became increasingly critical. Although teaching chemists had struggled with the role of the laboratory even before the use of instruments be-

came pervasive (25), it now became a regularly recurring theme for those charged with teaching chemistry for undergraduates. Remsen was of the opinion (26 ) that “the only way to learn [chemistry] was to see its results, to experiment, to work in a laboratory.” The pages of this Journal are replete with commentary on laboratory instruction, what to do and why to do it, at practically every level of education starting with precollege work. Precious few hard data exist, however, that address the usefulness of laboratory instruction in learning chemistry; there are, of course, a large number of opinions, usually based on personal observations of “successful chemists”. Digital Technology Very often modern instrumentation incorporates some kind of chip-oriented technology (the faster and much more versatile modern equivalent of vacuum-tube-related electronic circuits), so it is not surprising that a grounding in computer technology is subsumed in many modern instrumental analysis courses. However, the use of interactive computing in education, the processes described as teaching and learning, has become a major consideration in chemical education. In the early 1970s, before microprocessor-based individual computers became available, there were indications that computer-based techniques could be beneficial in the instructional process. A brief review of computer-based applications in general chemistry using a relatively large time-sharing system pointed to the teaching–learning areas where success could be expected (27 ). Similar information began to become available from the University of Illinois’s use of the PLATO system (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) in chemistry instruction (28). Successful applications of computer-based techniques were also demonstrated in organic chemistry instruction (29). These early observations indicated the efficacy of using computer-based methods in the teaching–learning environment found in most chemistry courses. From the students’ point of view, the availability of interactive computing yielded achievement at a higher level, using standard measures, than without such computing. At the same time, these techniques provided more time for teachers to devote to their students. All in all, the educational process—both teaching and learning—appeared to be enhanced. As soon as microprocessor-based personal computers became widely available (e.g., Radio Shack TRS 80 systems and those manufactured by Apple), teachers began to experiment with their use in the chemistry classroom. It quickly became obvious that the educational process could be improved by application of certain kinds of microprocessor-based interactive programs, a conclusion consonant with that based on

The only way to learn [chemistry] was to see its results, to experiment, to work in a laboratory. —Ira Remsen

428

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 4 April 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu


ducing a new computer series feature (30). From the nature of the programs collected and disseminated, it soon became clear that a number of the more useful subjects in chemistry were not being addressed by the computer-oriented chemical education community while other subject areas were being saturated by variations on a theme. In 1984, the SERAPHIM leadership brought together about 40 chemistry educators, research chemists, computer programmers, learning experts, and representatives of computer hardware and software companies to point the way to new directions in the use of instructional programming for chemical education. A description of the meeting and its outcomes is available (31). It is fair to say that this meeting produced the basis for SERAPHIM to become more proactive and to begin to induce activity where none had existed. In its proactive phase, SERAPHIM appointed approximately 80 faculty as Fellows whose task was to create new software. The experience gained in Project SERAPHIM laid the basis for the establishment of JCE:Software. The process of creating educational software to help teachers teach and students learn had reached the point where the products of that process needed to be intellectually peer-tested in the same sense that other ideas are before they appear in print. Some attempts at this had been made in early columns of the Computer Series, but it quickly became apparent that the usual review process produced publishable items (words on a printed page) that discussed—often in very creative ways—the software and/or its effect on the educational process. The software, which was the object of such discussions, often did not get into the hands of Journal subscribers except through special efforts or by accident. JCE:Software was created under the able guidance of John W. Moore, as a vehicle for the publication of creative work expressed as computer programs. It was (and is) in-

photos by J. J. Jacobsen & Nancy S. Gettys

data from the large central time-shared systems mentioned previously. Many teachers started to develop educationally oriented applications for courses in the chemistry curriculum, most often general chemistry. Ne w players in this environment needed to know what had been done previously and how well it worked in the classroom, if for no other reason than to save themselves time and effort. It was clearly the time to develop an efficient process that could not only make such information readily available, but also distribute the relevant programs to all interested parties. Project SERAPHIM, an NSF-supported program, was inaugurated in 1982 (J. W. Moore and J. J. Lagowski, principal investigators). Project SERAPHIM (Systems Engineering, Respecting, Acquisition, and Propagation of Heuristic Instructional Materials, a tongue-in-cheek acronym coined by D. A. Davenport) was aimed at setting up a model system for disseminating instructional materials in chemistry. From the beginning, most of the instructional modules handled by the project were computer based, with emphasis on microcomputers. Other kinds of materials had been contemplated, but computerbased materials rapidly assumed primacy. The project established methods for publicizing and disseminating computerbased modules and sought to identify and directly involve persons throughout the chemical and chemical education communities interested in working in this area. Initially, modules were to be reviewed and tested in classrooms and laboratories, and reviews by actual users were to appear in this Journal. Although the SERAPHIM programs never achieved that level of activity, the ideas ultimately found their expression in JCE :Software. In 1979, about the time that SERAPHIM was created, this Journal became involved with disseminating computerrelated ideas as they applied to chemical education by intro-

Nitric acid acts upon copper


429

photos by J. J. Jacobsen


A modern wet laboratory.

tended as the venue for computer programs to be intellectually tested (reviewed) by a community of peers to the same level of acceptability that conventional manuscripts must attain before they appear in print in this Journal or any other. The philosophy of this new venture was incorporated in the abstract of the first issue of JCE:Software, which appeared in May 1988 (32). The success of the peer-review process for a spectrum of program types expressed on a variety of platforms is demonstrated on the pages of this Journal, where the abstracts of JCE:Software offerings appear regularly. Learning Theory Over about the past 25 years, significant progress has been made in learning theory as it applies to individual student differences and the instructional process, the interaction being depicted by the Venn diagram in Figure 1. Differential psychology—the study of individual differences—has produced reasonably coherent insights into the role of individual differences such as intelligence, cognitive skills, and personality on the aspect of human behavior called learning. Aptitude-by-treatment interaction (ATI) research investigates the effects of learner aptitudes and traits on learning via different forms of instruction. Such research indicates that learners with different traits will be variably successful in learning a specific task or content depending on the mental operations required and their own aptitudes and styles. The ATI model indicates that (i) individual differences play an important role in learning and instruction and (ii) awareness of individual differences will make educators (teachers and instructional designers) more sensitive to their role in learning. Further, ATI research provides a descriptive model for considering the role of individual differences. These individual difference characteristics describe the ways in which humans are able to perceive and conceive interactions with environments. If these environments increasingly involve access to computer programs designed to individualize instruction, those who design and utilize such programs

Figure 1. The interaction between individual differences, learning, and instruction.

430

should recognize the effect of individual differences on learning and the instructional process, to maximize the programs’ efficacy. When learners interact with various modes of instruction, they develop preferred patterns for engaging the physical, mental, and emotional requirements imposed by those learning modes. These are collectively known as learning styles. For a comprehensive review of individual differences, see ref 33. The Current State of Chemical Education

The centrality of chemistry as a way of understanding the molecularity of the world has increased educational and research interest in the discipline. Many academic departments of chemistry attempt to teach the discipline to an increasing number of students with a widening spectrum of interests. The relationship of college/university chemistry to secondary school chemistry is becoming more important through AP courses, for example, as society seeks in effect to “downsize” the educational system by eliminating redundancy. The AP course (college-level chemistry taught in a precollege environment) is looked upon in some states as a way to improve the efficiency of the educational process. If capable students can take entry-level chemistry courses (or any other subject) before they get to college, those resources will not be needed at the college level—or so the argument goes. Traditional methods of instruction strain conventional human, administrative, space, and temporal resources. It is becoming increasingly clear that judicious use of technology can alleviate, or at least shift, some of the pressures on such conventional resources. The current state of the discipline is demonstrated by the implications of the way technology can and will affect the way we teach and what we teach.

The FIPSE Lectures in Chemistry The potential impact of (the then-known) uses of digital technology in the educational process was discussed in a series of four lectures presented at the 10th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education at Purdue University in August 1988 and at the ACS meeting in Los Angeles in September 1988. The lectures, published in this Journal (34), were the culmination of extended discussions with a group of teaching chemists closely involved in discovering the effective use of digital technology in the chemistry curriculum. The FIPSE lectures were designed to describe what technology enables us to do, to leave out, and to improve in the chemistry curriculum. They discussed not only the benefits of technology but the inertia associated with incorporating effective technology into the curriculum (35 ). They summarized the impact of effective technology on laboratory practices (36 ) and the impact of the availability of images on how we teach chemistry (37). The general conclusions about the impact of technology on the curriculum



were presented as follows (38): • • • • • • •

Learning should become more active. Books should be thinner. Lectures should be fewer. Examinations must be different. Laboratories should be more flexible. The curriculum should become more laboratory oriented. Courses should be better integrated.

In other words, the effective application of digital technology will shift the educational process toward students learning (becoming more actively engaged) and away from teachers teaching (lecturing to passive students).

Scholarship in Chemical Education The impact of technology on the teaching/learning process has produced an environment where there is significant potential for scholarly activities in chemical education. Although there have been a number of distinguished chemical educators in the past, the current interest in effective transmittal of “chemistry” to a growing spectrum of students with diverse interests in the subject and different academic backgrounds has focused on the need for scholars in the subdiscipline of chemical education. The Division of Chemical Education recognized this need by creating a task force to define the elements of scholarship (research) in chemical education. The report of that task force has been published (39). It defines the following areas of scholarship: • Scholarship of Teaching • Scholarship of Discovery • Scholarship of Application The report also attempts to outline the domain and characteristics of chemistry education research. It is required reading for any who would engage in chemical education or who would hire chemical educators—teaching chemists. Assessment Questions of assessment—the formation of an authoritative judgment on educational processes—have recently begun to become important to the chemical education community. The National Science Education Standards introduced in 1995 by the National Research Council (40) focus on the assessment of content, students, teachers, programs, and policies. Although the assessment standards are explicitly expressed in terms of grades K–12, they have implications for chemical education, if only indirectly. Careful inspection of the NAS standards shows that they define the science (not necessarily chemistry) content that all students should know and be able to do and they also provide guidelines for assessing the degree to which students have learned that content. Content standards that involve subjects generally found in entry-level chemistry courses (the structure of atoms, structure and properties of matter, chemical reactions, conservation of energy and increase in disorder, and interactions of energy and matter) are found within

“Physical Science” course descriptions; familiar chemistry-oriented subjects appear as parts of other precollege science courses. The standards do not address the content of basic science courses (chemistry, physics, and biology) that are typically taught in the later years of most high school offerings and articulate with those subjects at the college level. The standards ultimately will affect the way postsecondary chemistry courses (as well as AP courses) are taught because students who achieve those standards will have a markedly different view of the processes of science than in the past. Arguably, the most important change will be in students’ understanding of science as inquiry—a process that implies they will have a more active attitude toward study of the basic sciences at the college level. The National Science Education Standards do, however, contain the elements of assessment for the evaluation of students, teachers, and programs and policies in chemical education if the community chooses to use them. It would appear wise to do so. Assessment of the undergraduate chemistry curriculum from a professional point of view has been a part of most departments of chemistry since 1936, through the activities of CPT (see above). Looking Forward Collectively, if not individually, we most often attempt to teach chemistry to the majority of our students as if “one size fits all”, a model derived from the earliest days of teaching chemistry. Chemistry, it seems, has usually been taught as if all students were going to be professional chemists. Lockemann and Oesper describe the laboratory that Stromeyer (a German chemist in the early 19th century who helped formulate the basis of laboratory instruction during those times) conducted for his students (41): Those medical students who enrolled for these exercises made quantitative analysis in the laboratory and for homework were given samples which they studied qualitatively. Short papers were written about these analyses and were delivered orally. It was claimed by Stromeyer that such exercises awakened an interest for chemistry among the students who formally had regarded this subject merely as a memory test to be reproduced for the examination.

In those days, all students who studied chemistry, whether in the context of mineralogy or of medicine, did the same thing. It apparently didn’t matter whether the student was going to be a practicing chemist; everyone did the laboratory work required of a neophyte chemist. We still generally teach chemistry in a structure—lecture and laboratory— designed by our scientific forebears, even though the reasons many students take chemistry are different from the earlier ones. The general structure of chemistry instruction has changed little since the early part of the 19th century. Our current model that is supposed to “fit all” consists of (i) classroom lectures in which the students are for the most part passive observers of a (sometimes rapidly) changing subject; (ii) teachers who are expected to be (and who often behave as if they are) the source of all information on the subject; (iii) a course content that is often static to the point that large parts of it are more appropriate to 19th century practices; and (iv) presentation of the subject as homogeneous, with little idea of its relationship to the real world or to other dis-


431


Volume 1

e d.

erv

C

he

Al

of

lr

ion

ig h

vis

ts

Di

res

997

432

appears ripe for an educational proChemistry Comes Alive! cess that can deal with a wide spectrum of perceived individual student needs not necessarily related to the traditional core of Windows Special Issue 18 Macintosh ideas that drive the current chemistry curriculum. A system will surely develop that can respond to Software the on-demand, just-in-time philosophy that currently pervades the world in which our students must earn their keep. It is not at all clear that many of the existing academic institutions will be able to become part of such a system. ©1

ciplines. Laboratory-oriented experiences, whether they be manipulative, data analyses, or cognitive, are often nonexistent. Advances in technology and learning theory, as well as changes of far-reaching importance to higher education but external to it, portend a future radically disconnected from the past experiences of chemical education. From one point of view (one possibly not appreciated by many involved with higher education), colleges and universities have become less relevant to society because they have yet to understand, much less respond to, the demands being placed upon them. Like it or not, the most relentless pressure on colleges and universities stems from the changing nature of the American economy and the role a college degree has come to play in providing access to good jobs. The transformation of the economy from a manufacturing base to a service (information) base and the substantial decline of high-wage traditional bluecollar employment drives the current association of a college degree with a good job. The evidence is persuasive. In 1981, nearly 9% of the nation’s top-paying jobs were held by persons in the manufacturing sector who had no more than a high school education. A decade later, the share of those jobs fell by one-third to 6%, an absolute decrease of nearly a half-million workers in a labor force that had increased by almost 12 million. Prospects for most college graduates, on the other hand, have been very different. Most of the growth in top-paying jobs during the past decade has come in the part of the service sector that employs holders of the baccalaureate degree; the gap in expected earnings between college and high school graduates has increased by 20%. Even an education corresponding to “some college” has come to have significant impact on expected earnings, and employers are increasingly relying on associate degrees and technical certificates offered by community colleges as a method of screening job applicants. Much of the interest of today’s workers in obtaining a college degrees is prompted by the recognition that without one they will become increasingly disadvantaged in a harsh job market. Blocked from promotion and occupying jobs in a declining manufacturing sector, they have helped swell the ranks of older-than-average college students to the point where they have become a sizable cohort in higher education’s new majority. For students entering college directly from high school, the fear of not finding a job is redefining their college years. Vocationalism now affects everything from the choice of an academic major to students’ demands for academic advising, career counseling, and job placement services. Parents measure the quality of higher education in terms of their children’s ability to obtain secure and well-paying jobs. Students are asking similar questions as they face the harsh realities of rising levels of educational indebtedness. From the point of view of the academic, liberal arts tradition, vocational-like training is not education. There’s the root of the crisis in higher education, a crisis that contains echoes of the historical relationship between chemistry and the needs of society. The vocational goals associated with higher education have, of course, increased the demand for the baccalaureate degree, resulting in rising college and university enrollments. There is also growing interest in an education designed for the whole person—the modern Renaissance person—that will allow graduates to succeed in a variety of jobs. The environment

mi

ca

lE

du

cat

io n

, In c

., A m e

ric a n C h e m ic al S o

ciety

and

its

li c

en

so

rs

21st Century Chemical Education The promise of the impact of technology on chemical education, which has been growing for a quarter century, is about to be fulfilled as improved versions of the original technologies make their way into the educational system. The appearance of CD-ROM technology at a level where a single interested teacher can produce CD-ROMs, local area network (LAN) technology, Internet connections, multimedia tools, and collaborative software environments is fueling a new wave of teaching approaches. This new technology promises more than just improvement in educational productivity; it has the potential also to change qualitatively the nature of learning itself. Many of these tools are becoming useful in educating people in the work place, and much of the down-sizing in business is based on the expectation that successful employees will learn to be more flexible. Organizations are linking learning to increased productivity, rather than anticipating a need and attempting to train in advance of the act of production. Thus employers and educational systems are coming together on their expectations associated with the products of the educational system: the students. Modern business expects students to possess a set of skills different from those emphasized in early 20th century pedagogy. Employers themselves are using new technologies to educate employees and they expect future employees to be better learners. Fundamental shifts in the use of technology associated with learning/teaching mirror those occurring in many industries: for example, shifts away from centralized host-based computer systems to a networked distribution model. They also echo a new way of thinking in education theory: instead of a one-way information flow typified by broadcast TV or a teacher addressing a group of passive students, new-technologyassociated teaching techniques are two-way, collaborative, and interdisciplinary. The common thread linking schools, colleges, and companies is that all face budget pressures and are looking for ways to improve education’s return on investment. Schools and companies are using similar technologies to address similar problems because there is ample evidence that appropriate use of technology can boost retention rates, reduce boredom and misbehavior, and, in many cases, cut costs. Numerous studies have found that educational technology clearly boosts student achievement, improves student attitudes and self-concept, and enhances the quality of student–teacher relationships. Especially promising technologies are interactive video, networking, and collaboration tools. Computers can be amazingly patient tutors; they can spur creative thinking, promote enterprise, and whet curiosity.


.


Numerous studies conclude that technology alone is not the solution. Reaping the benefits of computers first requires extensive teacher training, development of new curricular materials, and, most important, making changes to educational models. Modern educational concepts grounded in theory and research emphasize individualized hands-on learning, teamwork, and guided discovery of information. These concepts are not only well suited to technology assistance, but, given the economics of teaching and training, they are nearly impossible to effect without the help of computers. Learning must be tailored to the individual student or employee, and this cannot be made to happen in a cost-effective manner without the aid of technology. People learning in large group environments are often hesitant to speak out because the culture makes them feel foolish if they make a mistake. One of the great attributes of computers is that they can be made nonthreatening when interacting with humans. Computers, as electronic mentors, can provide built-in experts available on-line—looking over your shoulder, so to speak. Thus, instead of the current model where one expert is at the front of the room talking to a large number of people, computer-based methods offer hundreds of experts, all blind to human foibles. This permits the economical return of a very old model of education: apprenticeship, which many believe is the best learning model, regardless of whether one learns from other people or from simulations. Computer-based techniques permit students to acquire skills that often are obtained through apprenticeshiplike activities, as for example learning to fly an airplane. The implications of this transformation of education by technology affect both students and teachers. Instructors become more like coaches while students become free to discover knowledge on their own. With digital technology, teachers become facilitators, collaborators, and brokers of resources. The networks have the information, but the students need a guide. The introduction of digital and telecommunication technologies portends a change in the paradigm of education (Table 1) from the current passive, one-size-fits-all to a more individualized and active system. From a historical viewpoint, the new model of education seems to have at least one attribute of the successful 19th century model of chemical education, namely, individualization of different student interests.

Information Providers

Educational System

Learners

Figure 2. A representation of the future educational system.

Computers are also a great aid in the preparation of course materials, whether through computer-oriented conventional tools such as word processing, desktop publishing, presentation or illustration packages or as a means of accessing far-flung resources. By making it easier to prepare materials, computers allow teachers to focus on explaining information instead of on transmitting it. For many years, distance learning was the prime example of the potential of educational technology. The current video broadcast model of distance learning requires participating students to watch a live transmission via cable or satellite or wait for days to receive a video tape. New schemes involving a combination of networking and mobile access let students dial in at their convenience and participate in a class asynchronously. Even though the opportunity for feedback and participation does not occur in real time, learning interactions are enhanced by rich two-way communication channels. The interactive digital telecommunications infrastructure being established can be imagined as a system that connects learners to information providers in ways unconstrained in time and space (Fig. 2.). Information providers are (i) persons we now call teachers who have produced instructionally useful software packages; (ii) database organizers like Chemical Abstracts or other publishers who have online journals; (iii) other learners, like other teachers. Thus teachers who want to learn use the same educational system as students who want to learn. Teachers may want to learn more deeply about the subjects they are teaching their students, or they might want to learn about what other teachers are doing. In other words, a person’s identity as teacher or learner might change from moment to moment depending upon his or her needs. The developing educational system will permit new modes of learning incorporating the following elements: • • • • • • •

simulation of real-life environments enabling self-paced learning lowering the “intimidation” factor reducing classroom behavioral problems increasing one-on-one instruction providing access to more information implementing “situated learning” or learning while doing, which is sometimes described as just-in-time learning


433


The educational system will be a depository of highquality video images, both still and full motion. These images will be accessed on demand and used for individualized local consumption. They could represent reactions of exotic substances, for example the aqueous chemistry of gold or plutonium, or of complex processes such as how to use a superconducting NMR spectrometer or the reactions during in the

processing of crude oil to obtain petrochemicals. The educational system will contain information on demonstrations, either a video clip of the actual demonstration or directions for doing the demonstration. Examples of all these kinds of uses exist. The best way to imagine the impact of this developing education system is to provide some typical chemical educationoriented scenarios. (The scenarios are artificial in the sense that the real names of the people and places involved are not used, but the situations described are real.) The scenarios appear in the Box below. The solutions to the problems described, in which a variety of people seek information for a variety of learning reasons, exist in the interactive educational system diagrammed in Figure 2. The educational system is a resource for learners at all levels in formal and informal educational environments, as well as for traditional classroom instructors who want to incorporate modern digitally-based information into their formal courses or simply seek additional information. The new educational system shifts the education paradigm from the static, passive, and homogeneous environment characteristic of much current science education to a new one with the characteristics summarized in Table 1.

Chemical Education-Oriented Scenarios •

Stephen Rieger, teaching an entry-level chemistry course at a small private college in Ohio, needs a video clip of the historical antecedents of the concept of acids and bases and student-oriented materials associated with environmental issues related to the same subject. He accesses the educational system on the Internet from his home, finds the relevant information, and downloads the appropriate items for local use.

•

Sylvia Hernandez, studying to be an elementary teacher at a state university in the American Southwest, needs information on indicators as a measure of acidity in natural waters as a part of an acid-rain lesson. She is taking a new course for nonscience majors entitled “A Scientist’s View of Nature” as a part of her science requirements for elementary education majors. She accesses the educational system, finds information on “Matter-mixtures-solutions-species” to get the details she needs for her project. She and her friend Diana, who attends the local community college, are working on similar projects. They work in the evenings at Diana’s house because Diana has a home computer that she uses to help Steve, her husband, with the accounting associated with his automotive repair business.

•

Chi Nguyen is a senior at a high school in a small town near St. Louis. He has completed all the chemistry courses offered by his high school, which his teacher has augmented with information from the educational system. Mary Satterwhite, his high school chemistry teacher, has arranged for Chi to “attend” a special chemistry course at St. Louis University for credit. This week’s laboratory assignment is an experiment in qualitative analysis and Chi’s prelab assignment is to study the solubilities of some “exotic” cations, plutonium and gold, to determine where they might occur in the standard qualitative analysis scheme. He is interacting with video clips incorporating observations on the reactions of plutonium and gold, which he found in the educational system, the same source that his teacher used for the three chemistry courses he has already taken under her tutelage.

•

Martha Dobson, a homemaker in New England with two small children, is interacting with the educational system to find a simple demonstration involving dry ice (solid CO2) that she can use as a centerpiece for a Girl Scout meeting she is planning.

•

Jane Miller, a teacher of introductory chemistry at a comprehensive university in the American Northeast, wants to develop a course in introductory chemistry that stresses women’s contributions to the subject. She knows that the educational system is intensively cross-referenced to the identity of those who have contributed to the intellectually important areas of chemistry; indeed, it contains an extensive series of biographical sketches of these scientists. Jane knows it is possible to construct a course based on gender considerations and the associated contributions. She starts to develop her course from this point of view, filling in the missing pieces of chemistry content as she needs them.

•

Omar Hosny is a mechanical engineer for the InterArabian Oil Company. He has been assigned a task in the El Shaskin oil fields that requires him to recall some details from the last organic chemistry class he took as an undergraduate nine years ago. He cannot get away from the fields because of his daily obligations, but he is able to connect his portable lap-top computer to the educational system during his free time and down-load the relevant parts of the latest textbook on organic chemistry, which incorporates a number of new ideas that Omar never studied or even knew existed. In fact, they may not have existed when Omar studied organic chemistry!

434



Application of technology to educational processes can result in a new teaching/learning environment characterized by: •

boosting of curiosity, creativity, and teamwork

•

changed role of the teacher

•

reemergence of the apprenticeship model of education

•

reduced intimidation and less frustration among students

•

reduced behavioral problems and improved concentration and self-image

•

access to more information (background and related material on demand)

•

richer information environment to penetrate “media overload”

•

breaking down classroom walls and integrating home, town, and world

•

breaking out of the confines of the rigid semester or term chronology of most academic institutions

•

increased sense of subject ownership by the student

Such changes portend a major restructuring of academic institutions. Research in the chemical sense will still be done because society has decided, perhaps indirectly, that the development of new knowledge necessary to keep humankind viable will be done at academic institutions. There is no reason to believe that industrial or government laboratories will reverse their preference to deal with developmental issues, the transfer of the fruits of scientific inquiry into technologically important products for society. The support of academic research will have to become more overt. For example, a large fraction of academic research personnel costs using graduate students is generally subsumed within the teaching budget. In an environment where learning is dispersed through technology, the role of graduate teaching assistants is not at all obvious. Perhaps they will monitor (mentor) the technologically enhanced conversations on chemistry in the academic equivalent of chat rooms. Academic institutions will be more obviously responsible for dispensing new knowledge (teaching) as well as encouraging the development of learning skills by neophyte learners, as they do now. It will be more obvious in the new environment that the creation of learning materials that can be rapidly and efficiently updated could be a major activity of the faculty. Currently, “writing textbooks” is the major contribution of faculty to curricular activity, although there are notable examples of academic authorship of multimedia materials. From the point of view of the faculty, “book development” is a personal activity done in the “odd hours” with the assistance of a publisher who also provides a reasonably efficient distribution system for the final product. The creation of digitally oriented materials is not easily done in the odd hours, and many institutions avidly pursue such efforts under the guise of protecting intellectual property in which the institution has an interest. Textbooks rarely have been so treated because the assumption is that few obvious institutional resources have been employed to create a textbook; testing of textbook manuscripts can be incorporated in the normal course-offering processes. On the other hand, digital-based materials, while they may be created with personal resources, often cannot be refined and tested without employing considerable institutional resources.

The role of the laboratory in a digital education environment will have to be addressed seriously by academics. Currently, even though there is considerable interest driven by a variety of NSF initiatives in improving laboratory instruction—especially in entry-level courses, it is not obvious how laboratory experiments help students in service courses learn chemistry. More creative approaches to laboratory instruction for students who really need experience in, for example, techniques, will have to be formulated for a digital distance learning environment. The effort to intellectualize the role of laboratory instruction for the wide-spectrum of interests of students taking general chemistry may be one of the more important results of moving to a distance learning environment. Academic institutions will also face new administrative challenges. The current concept of a “course”, expressed in terms of credit hours (the work a student must do in a given [arbitrary] amount of time), will have to be focused on carefully specified goals to be achieved more-or-less uncoupled from time constraints. No longer will it be logical to describe a course simply in terms of “covering chapters 1–12 of the assigned text”. At least, that kind of course description will have to be carefully scrutinized. In addition, the description of the quality of students’ efforts in terms of the conventional A through F grade designations may be inappropriate in a fully digitally-enhanced distance learning environment. Testing, which is often the major element in establishing a student’s course grade, will have to be rethought in an environment where it may not be possible to guarantee that the “distance learner” is really who he or she claims to be. Chemical education will never again be what it was. In fact, it may never have been what we thought it was. But the 21st century will supply many challenges for chemical education. Literature Cited 1. The papers presented at a symposium entitled “Education for Industry” appear in a booklet of the same name: Education for Industry; Melton, L. A.; Collette, J., Eds. This can be obtained from the American Chemical Society, Office of Industry Relations, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036. 2. Kroto, H. W.; Heath, J. R.; O’Brien, S. C.; Curl, R. E.; Smalley, R. F. Nature 1985, 318, 162. 3. Gordon, N. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 1. 4. Slosson, E. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 3. 5. Cornog, J.; Colbert, J. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 5. 6. Smith, H. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 12. 7. Patrick, W. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 16. 8. Sy, A. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 25. 9. Hopkins, B. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 35. 10. Chapin, W. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 48. 11. Stone, C. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 55. 12. Salathe, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 61. 13. Gordon, N. E.; Hopkins, B. S.; Kuebler, J. R.; Mattern, L. W.; Newell, L. C.; Rose, R. E.; Segerblom, W.; Schmidt, W.; Swain, R. E.; Thompson, T. G.; Willard, F. W. J. Chem. Educ., 1924, 1, 87. 14. Dely, J. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 115. 15. Cartledge, G. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 119. 16. James, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 153. 17. Gortner, R. A.; Read, J. W.; Kraybill, H. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 177. 18. Ferguson, A. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 183. 19. Brinton, H. M. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 226. 20. The first article in “The Forum” series describes its philosophy and appears in J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 403.


435

Viewpoints: Chemists on Chemistry 21. The latest guidelines of the Committee on Professional Training can be obtained from the Office of Professional Training of the American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036; a report of CPT appears annually in Chemical and Engineering News. 22. Lambert, R. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1946, 23, 610. 23. Serfass, E. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1950, 27, 388. 24. Safford, W. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1956, 33, 436. 25. Schlesinger, H. I. J. Chem. Educ. 1935, 12, 524. 26. Getman, F. H. The Life and Times of Ira Remsen; The Journal of Chemical Education: Easton, PA, 1940. 27. Castleberry, S.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ., 1970, 47, 91. Castleberry, S.; Culp, G. H.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1973, 50, 409. 28. Smith, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, 608. Smith, S. G.; Ghesquiere, J. R.; Avner, R. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1974, 51, 243. 29. Rodewald, L. B.; Culp, G. H.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, 134. Smith, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1971, 48, 727. 30. The first article in The Computer Series appeared in J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 140. The series was an attempt to delineate the state of the art of computer usage in chemical education. In 1988 (J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, A96), the regular feature entitled The Computer Bulletin Board was inaugurated to complement The Computer Series

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41.

because of the increased volume of computer-related manuscripts. The Bulletin Board published short notes and articles describing new and innovative applications of hardware and commercial software packages to the teaching of chemistry. The Computer Series continued to publish articles describing authors’ own programs or addressing general issues relating to computing in chemical education. Moore, J. W.; Moore, E. A.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 1003. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 388. Jonassen, P. H.; Grabowski, B. L. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1993. The four FIPSE lectures were published in J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 3. Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 4. Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 12. Smith, S. G.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 8. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 15. Herron, J. D.; The Task Force on Chemical Education Research of the American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 850. The National Science Education Standards; The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995. Lockemann, G.; Oesper, R. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1953, 30, 202.


Chemical Education: Past, Present, and Future J. J. Lagowski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712

J. J. Lagowski is Professor of Chemistry and Education at the University of Texas at Austin (Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana; Ph. D. in chemistry, Michigan State University; Ph. D. (cantab.) in chemistry, Cambridge University). He has been described by a colleague as “a complete academic package” for his activities in bench-oriented research and in chemical education. With respect to the former area of activity, Lagowski and his students have contributed significantly to an understanding of solution phenomena in non-aqueous solvents (primarily liquid ammonia) and the synthesis and characterization of organometallic compounds. On the other side of the coin, Lagowski and his students were early developers of successful methods of the application of interactive digital technology to the problems of educational processes, both learning and teaching. His Chemical Education Group continues in this development. Lagowski received the 1981 CMA National Award, the 1989 ACS Award in Chemical Education, and the 1996 Southwest Regional ACS Award, all for his contributions to the chemical community. He served as Editor of the Journal of Chemical Education during the period 1979–1996. Lagowski’s impact in chemistry is, perhaps best expressed in the words of a former student:

Alone among my college teachers, Lagowski was a mature scientist with the enthusiasm of a beginner, the philosophical and historical perspectives of a sage, the care and patience of a true mentor.

436


Chemical Education: Past, Present, and Future - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents