In the Classroom edited by
Secondary School Chemistry
Diana S. Mason University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203-5070
Erica K. Jacobsen
Chemistry, the Terminal Science?
University of Wisconsin–Madison Madison, WI 53706
The Impact of the High School Science Order on the Development of U.S. Chemistry Education Keith Sheppard* Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; *
[email protected] Dennis M. Robbins Borough of Manhattan Community College, New York, NY 10009
The central placement of chemistry between biology and physics in high school has profoundly influenced the nature of chemistry education in America. In a recent article in this Journal (1) we described how teaching the sciences in a biology-–chemistry–physics order came to be an accepted part of the “grammar of schooling” (2). We noted that the order was not part of any official curriculum (3), but was the practice that evolved in schools. In this article we outline some of the factors that led to the adoption of the order, noting that the original intent of early curriculum writers was to position chemistry as the terminal and not the central science in high school. We especially highlight the role of Alexander Smith (1865–1922) in establishing the placement of chemistry in the high school program. While Smith is remembered for his contributions to college chemistry and his success in writing general chemistry textbooks (4), his influence on the organization of high school chemistry is largely unrecognized. As high schools took their modern form in the late 19th century and the sciences became an integral part of the curriculum, the relative grade placement of individual sciences became a topic of debate. At this time, Smith recognized the significance of the issue, “the sequence of chemistry with reference to other subjects and the year in which it shall be placed are questions of great importance, since they affect profoundly the manner of the instruction and the amount that can be accomplished” (5a). For Smith, the issue was beyond debate, “whether chemistry or physics should come first is thus seen to be an idle question. Physics must come first” (5b). Ironically, while much recent attention has focused on which science should be taught first in high school (6–9) the educational question at the start of the 20th century was about which science should be taught last. To appreciate the significance of this issue and its effect on the development of chemistry education requires some familiarity with the prevalent educational philosophy of the time.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Mental Discipline and the Role of the Laboratory Work While today some question whether chemistry is in fact a laboratory science (10), its initial acceptance into college and secondary school curricula owed much to the use of laboratory work, as Smith noted, “without laboratory work it [the study of chemistry] is almost wholly valueless…” (11). The reason that laboratory work was regarded so highly was that it fit into the prevailing “mental discipline” educational worldview of the time (12). Mental discipline was based on the belief that the mind behaved like a muscle, which could be trained by appropriate exercises. The established classical subjects, Latin, Greek, and mathematics, were considered to be the most effective disciplines for “training the mind” by means of recitation and repetition (13). It was thought that mastery of a discipline led to the development of mental powers that were also transferable to other disciplines and so Latin, for example, would be an appropriate preparation for college chemistry (14). For the sciences the use of the individual laboratory work conducted by students provided mental discipline by allowing students to be trained in making observations, in organizing their observations in notebooks, and by making inferences from them. Accordingly, laboratory-based sciences, such as chemistry, were claimed to be the educational equivalent of more traditional subjects and should be included in high school curricula. Thus, chemistry successfully made its way into the course of studies but the question became in which grade should it be placed? The science education literature of the 1890s was full of commentary and diverse opinion about the issue and the acquisition of mental discipline and the role of individual laboratory work were foremost in the debate (15–19). Smith co-authored a book with Edwin Hall, The Teaching of Chemistry and Physics in Secondary Schools, in which he reviewed
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1617
In the Classroom
the debate about the order and articulated his arguments for placing physics before chemistry (5). • Foundational argument: Chemistry depended upon physical conceptions and phenomena, and as such physics was a prerequisite for chemistry, especially experimental work, “when any chemical operation is to be carried out, its success invariably depends upon attention to matters belonging strictly to the domain of physics” (5c). • Educational economy argument: Preceding chemistry with physics “is the more economical arrangement, since it will but little diminish the speed with which physics may be acquired, while greatly accelerating the progress of the pupil in chemistry” (5a). • Subject difficulty argument: Smith disagreed with the common view of the time that chemistry was “simpler” than physics and noted that the prevalent view that chemistry texts were simpler than physics texts, was really a matter of which books were selected for comparison. Similarly, he argued that chemistry laboratory work was at least as difficult as the laboratory work in other sciences. • Mathematics argument: Smith disputed Ira Remsen’s contention (20) that physics should be taught last because of its greater mathematical requirement.
While Smith seemed to be advocating for “Physics First”, he might more accurately be described as a promoter of “Chemistry Last”. Twelfth grade was the most coveted grade placement for teachers, because it was optimal for “securing the best work from pupils in chemistry” (5b). College entrance exams were invariably taken at the end of the twelfth grade and were written presupposing that students had completed a twelfth grade level of work (5). If chemistry were to be offered in earlier grades then Smith argued that it should be more than a single-year course (21). In promoting “Chemistry Last”, Smith was not advocating anything unusual, physics followed by chemistry was the common pattern found in high schools at the turn of the 20th century (22–24). Rosen noted that there was a general tendency for college professors to prefer “Physics First”, while high school teachers favored a “Chemistry First” order (25). Smith’s advocacy for the late placement of chemistry was more than rhetorical. Between 1895 and 1899, he chaired the chemistry subcommittee of the Committee on College Entrance Requirements (CCER) (26, 27). The CCER was established to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Ten (20) and focused on creating “a national unit” (later the Carnegie Unit), by which all subjects could be compared. The CCER formally recommended that all subjects in high school should be one-year courses based on their proposed national unit; for chemistry, this represented a large increase in time allocation. The CCER’s chemistry subcommittee was asked to prepare a “standard minimum high school course” that was to be taken in the twelfth grade (27) and Smith’s group wrote their chemistry syllabus accordingly. They produced a comprehensive document for chemistry, while many of the other sciences turned in incomplete reports (26). Smith further recommended that chemistry be taught for six periods a week (four singles and a double period for laboratory work) (28). 1618
Journal of Chemical Education
•
In aiming chemistry at college-bound seniors, Smith’s subcommittee set the trajectory of the high school chemistry course for the 20th century. More than a half century later, Powers, the vice president of AAAS, noted in his retirement speech that the high school chemistry courses being taught and the organization of chemistry textbooks, in 1951, were still following the outline of the CCER recommendations (29); a remarkable situation given the major developments in chemistry that occurred between 1900 and 1950. The CCER recommendations for chemistry were almost immediately accepted by secondary schools as state chemistry syllabi incorporated the substance of them. In 1901, the newly formed College Entrance Examination Board adopted the CCER chemistry requirements wholesale and set up the first College Board chemistry examination (30). The chemistry exam covered a broad range of subject matter that was essentially the same material found in college chemistry courses. It required students to perform individual laboratory work and to keep a laboratory notebook, which was submitted to the College Board. High school chemistry textbooks written in the first decade of the 20th century followed this course outline and were written exclusively by college professors. Given the size and facilities of most schools it was impossible for them to offer more than one chemistry class in any given year. Consequently, College Board chemistry became the taught and tested curriculum in high schools (3). Organizing the subject for seniors affected all aspects of how chemistry was taught. It determined the aims of the course: the content that was included, the methods used to teach it and how many and which students could take the subject. Criticism of the course was extensive and it was viewed as being not only “subservient to college domination” (31), but also was too technical, too mathematical, required too much memorization of unconnected chemical facts, was unrelated to everyday life, was inappropriate for the vast majority of the population, and as a result chemistry was unpopular (32–34). Later, the committee of chemical education of the American Chemical Society (ACS), borrowing an objective of the CCER produced the “standard minimum high school course” (35). Interestingly, their four listed objectives for the course were virtually impossible for high schools to meet. First, it was directed at all students not just those who were collegebound; it was to cover the essentials of any state requirements; additionally it was to be “in-tune” with the College Board exam; and it was to have a list of supplementary topics that were not to be required for college entrance. The ACS committee on chemical education did not call for chemistry to be taught over more than one year, nor did it recommend different courses for students who would not be going to college. Not unsurprisingly, their outline was immediately denounced; “it should be called a maximum rather than a minimum study course” (36). Despite the widely expressed view that physics was “foundational” to chemistry, the physics–chemistry order slowly changed and by 1930 a biology–chemistry–physics order was prevalent. Factors leading to the change included the changing population of the schools, the appearance of new science courses (biology and general science), the changing aims of education away from mental discipline towards more childcentered practices and changing college admission require-
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
In the Classroom
ments. The biology–chemistry–physics order has been the predominant, but not unchallenged practice ever since. In nearly every decade after the 1930s articles were published that questioned this order and all repeated Smith’s argument about the foundational nature of physics to the other sciences (37).
put will be needed. We would suggest that the order in which the high school sciences are taught, the curricular time allocated to them and the relationship between chemistry the other sciences at the introductory level would be a suitable strand topic at the next national chemistry education conference.
Discussion
Literature Cited
The biology–chemistry–physics order for teaching the sciences is unique to the United States and stems from the similarly unique practice of teaching science subjects as singleyear courses (1). In no other area of high school did subjects become taught in discrete one-year courses in a fixed order. Indeed, it would be considered irrational to attempt to teach modern languages, for example, in a Spanish–French–Latin order with students completing the study of each language in a single year (38). A major drawback of the fixed and limited time allocation for chemistry is that it restricts the quantity of material that can be included in the curriculum and constrains the inclusion of newly developed materials. Despite this, many of the advances made in chemistry over the last century eventually found their way into the high school syllabus, resulting in an over-stuffing of chemistry courses, forcing teachers to adopt information-packed lectures as their primary teaching methodology. The limited time allocation is the ultimate problem facing U.S. high school chemistry, with teachers being asked to essentially pour 400 mL of chemistry content into a 250-mL curricular container. The biology–chemistry–physics order has come under scrutiny recently and while much of the debate has focused on the position of physics, it is really the placement of biology that is of most concern. Developments in biology over the last fifty years are increasingly making a course in chemistry a curricular prerequisite. Such a change will leave the high school science with either a chemistry–biology–physics or physics–chemistry–biology order, that is, either physics first or chemistry first. Another alternative would require offering the sciences over multiple years, which, while pedagogically sound, is administratively unlikely to happen. We can only speculate how high school chemistry would have developed if Smith’s suggestion for more than a single-year course earlier in high school program had been adopted. “Physics First” strands have become a regular feature of American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) conferences and a growing number of articles have been appearing on the topic (6–9). The biology education community has also become active holding a symposium “Biology: The Capstone Science Course” (i.e., “Biology Last”) and publishing their proceedings, which support a reorganization of the high school curriculum (39). As the individual science disciplines do not exist in isolation, chemists need to become involved in the debate. Powers wryly noted that, “chemists were slow to drop the phlogiston theory even after pioneer investigators had invalidated this view. They are even slower in their rejection of fallacious theories of education” (34). The chemistry education community has so far been silent on the issue of the grade placement of the sciences in high school, though if America is to develop a coherent science program their in-
1. Sheppard, K.; Robbins, D. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 561– 566. 2. Tyack, D.; Tobin, W. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1994, 31, 453–479. 3. Cuban, L. Studies in Philosophy and Educ. 1999, 18, 67–87. 4. Kendall, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 255–260. 5. Smith, A.; Hall, E. The Teaching of Chemistry and Physics in the Secondary School; Longmans Green: New York, 1902. (a) p 33. (b) p 28. (c) p 30. (d) p 38. 6. Sheppard, K.; Robbins. D. M. Phys. Teach. 2003, 41, 420– 424. 7. Bardeen, M. G.; Lederman, L. M. Science 1998, 28, 178–179. 8. Ewald, G.; Hickman, J. B.; Hickman, P.; Myers, F. Phys. Teach. 2005, 43, 319–320. 9. Lederman, L. M. Phys. Teach. 2005, 43, 6–7. 10. Hawkes, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1257. 11. Smith, A. School Rev. 1897, 5, 497. 12. Kolesnik, W. B. Mental Discipline in Modern Education; University of Madison Press: Madison WI, 1958. 13. Krug, E. A. The Shaping of the American High School, 1880– 1920; Harper and Row: New York, 1964; Vol. 1. 14. Kliebard, H. M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893–1958, 3rd ed.; Routledge Falmer: New York, 2004. 15. Shepard, J. H. The Academy 1887, 2, 117–121. 16. Griffis, H. L. The Academy 1887, 2, 121–123. 17. Editor. School Review 1896, 4, 187. 18. University of the State of New York. Report of the Committee of Nine; High School Report, Bulletin No. 7; University of the State of New York: Albany, NY, 1900. 19. Barnes, C. R. School Review 1896, 6, 643–658. 20. National Education Association. Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1893. 21. Smith, A. (chair). Special Report of the Committee on Chemistry—Presented to the Committee on College Entrance Requirements. In Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting; Committee on Chemistry: Chicago, 1899; pp 794–800. 22. Dexter, E. G. School Rev. 1906, 14, 254–269. 23. Hunter, G. W. School Sci. Math. 1910, 10, 103–111. 24. Stout, J. E. The Development of High School Curricula in the North Central States from 1860 to 1918; Educational Monograph No. 15; University of Chicago: Chicago, 1921. 25. Rosen, S. A. History of Science Teaching in the American Public High Schools 1820–1920. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University. Boston, MA, 1955. 26. National Educational Association. Report of the Committee on College Entrance Requirements. In Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting; National Educational Association: Chicago, 1899. 27. Nightingale, A. F. School Rev. 1897, 5, 321–331. 28. Smith, A. School Rev. 1899, 7, 453–461. 29. Powers, S. R. Scientific Monthly 1952, 74, 273–279.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1619
In the Classroom 30. College Entrance Examination Board. The Work of the College Entrance Examination Board 1901–1925; Ginn and Company: Boston, 1926. 31. Efron, A. The Teaching of Physical Sciences in the Secondary Schools of the United States, France and Soviet Russia. Ph.D. Thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1937; p 43. 32. Whitsit, J. E. Science 1910, 31, 974–979. 33. Stone, C. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 56. 34. Powers, S. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1925, 2, 998–1007. 35. Gordon, N. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 87–99. 36. Gordon, N. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1924, 1, 34. 37. See for example: (i) Reeves, E. T. J. Chem. Educ. 1940, 17, 442.
1620
Journal of Chemical Education
•
(ii) Smyth, T. School Sci. Math. 1940, 40, 255–260. (iii) Hoag, J. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1945, 22, 152–154. (iv) Blackmer, A. R. General Education in School and College, A Report of the Faculties of Andover, Exeter, Lawrenceville, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale; Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1952. (v) Robinson, J. T. School Sci. Math 1960, 60, 685–692. (vi) Palombi, J. Phys Teach. 1971, 9, 39–40. (vii) Gaudin, F. A. Sci. Teach. 1984, 51, 29–31. (viii) Sousa, D. A. NASSP Bulletin 1996, 80, 9–15. (ix) Lederman, L. M. AAPT Announcer 2002, 32, 136. 38. Sheppard, K.; Robbins, D. M. Principal Leadership 2002, 3, 67–70. 39. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Biology and the Physics First Curriculum; BSCS: Colorado Springs, CO, 2004.
Vol. 83 No. 11 November 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
