Chemistry: Tool or Discipline? Will chemistry go the way of mathematics? Like mathematics, chemistry is a critical tool in the study of many aspects of a number of allied sciences. Will chemistry, like mathematics, harely be ahle to produce enough practitioners to keep the discipline progressing and viable? Most chemistry departments already teach far fewer chemistry majors than students interested in other sciences. Like beginning mathematics instruction, heginning chemistry instruction often involves the student in minutiae. Chemistry courses that teach students to manipulate formulas rather than to analyze and solve problems are analogous to the calculus courses where students concentrate on the techniques of differentiation and integration without ever obtaining an appreciation of the physical implications of the mathematics. Currentlv mathematicians are strueelinn with redefining. -~~~~ the way calculus is taught. This effor;;; being driven by the readv availabilitv " of oowerlul hand calculators that can producigraphic displays of complex functions and hy software nackaees for microcom~utersthat essentially perform most bf the';echniques of dkferentintion and integration, which are the core of the older, standard calculus courses. Access to computing of this kind frees the teacher from the time constraints of "number crunching" and the need to develop approximation methods to obtain answers. Rather, instruction can now focus more strongly on the concepts of calculus and the implications of the mathematics in the real world. The key, of course, is to define appropriate real-world problems and to develop and foster a problem-solving approach that leads students to question and to think. As it is now, students can take derivatives of functions, hut they have little or no appreciation of the importance of derivatives in actual aoolications. More and more technology is producing an ambience that demands that the educational system focus on the ohwical implications of the mathematics rather than on mihutiae. On the down side, some argue that if the students are less dependent upon knowing details, they will also be less likely to understand the subject. The real question in this environment is what to do with the "extra" time. How to make it more productive.
.
A
The impact of technology on teaching chemistry is rapidly approaching the situation that obtains in mathematics. Indeed, the advent of powerful, easily accessible computing has altered the perceived importanre of teaching the details of equilibrium calculations. For example, the introduction of traditional approximation methods to solve quadratic equations that reflect solution s~eciesunder snecial conditions of concentrations is no longer necessary; the concentrations of all soecies in any solution-concentrated or dilute. including activity corrections-can be readily calculated, h"t to what end? Thus, the traditionally "hard" problem from the standpoint of the mathematics involved is no longer barred from homework assignments or examinations. This means, in effect, that the ability to use mathematics no longer discriminates the "better students" from the rest of their cohort. With access to modem technolow. all students should he ahle to get "the answers"; but to wcitend? The challenge that teachers now face is the development of new methods and approaches to illustrate the implications of chemical orinciples in real-world situations-in wavs that stress the ;hem& rather than an ability to manip;late symbols mechanically. Reform in the chemistw curriculum will he difficult iust as it is in mathematics. here are certain subjects that teachers will not be able to conceive of eliminating or changing. Perhaps elimination of the tedium of knowing how to do equilibrium calculations (or methods of integration, or some other detail) will remove an important component from the educational process that helps students to "really understand" chemistry. Perhaps it is the actual process of working through the details that leads to understandine. If this is the case, thmology should not be used to eliminate the details, but rather to reinforce the process of going through the details. All of this suggests that the questions we currently ask of students in an effort to establish their level of "understandine" are inaonronriate if thev focus exclusivelv on numerical answers. To many teachers, this is new ground, hut it's worth exolorine if we want chemistrv. to oromess . - and to remain a vital discFpline.
-
.&
-
JJL
Volume 66
Number 9
September 1989
701
