College Chemistry in 1894: An Analysis of an Old Examination Kenneth G. Everett1 Stetson University, DeLand. FL 32720 Will S. DeLoach2 University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC Of the various documentarv materials studied bv historians of science education, old-examinations have 6een perhaps the most nedected. Whether t h e suhiect of interest is mithodology or content, the value of old-examinations in retracing the detail of early science instruction is obvious. Aside from lecture notes, n o other type of historical record provides a truer guide to what was taught in yesterday's classrooms; and neither notes nor old textbooks show a s clearly what material was emphasized by instructors and what was expected of students. Despite their historical significance, however, it has probably more often been sentiment, or the attraction of antiquity, t h a t inspired the preservation of old examinations. In any event, these were the motives t h a t prompted one of the present authors (W.S.D.) t o save the old examination which forms the subject of this article. Orlgln of the Examination T h e examination was obtained (by W.S.D.) in 1940 from R. J. Slay (then chairman of the Science Department a t East Carolina Teachers College-now East Carolina University), who stated t h a t it came from Wake Forest College. Neither college nor instructor is mentioned on the examination. It is dated March 21, 1894, and bears designation as "A Final Examination in Chemistrv". eiven t o the "Senior Class". . . .. .4lth(rugh there is no sur\,iring rerord 01 this particular examination in the Chemistry Deuartment at Wake Forest s t teaching chemUniversity, it is known t h a t ~ a k e ~ o r ewas istry in 1894. T h e examination is reproduced in full in the figure. A Contrast with i h e Present In a number of its features this examination contrasts markedly with most modern ones.
1) Except for a few answers requested in the form of symbols, formulas, and equations, the questions are entirely of the essay type. It is, of course, not known what length and detail were expected in answers to these questions, hut it is clear that students were assumed to be proficient in expository writing. 2) The questions deal primarily with descriptive and applied chemistry-with questions 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 being examples of the former, and questions 4,9, and part of 6 (on soap, bread-making, and well water, respectivelv),examples of the latter. 3) Question 1,on the difference between "mechanical" and "ehemical" farce, and question 5, on "the common chemical operations" (synthesis and analysis?), are the only ones to deviate from the descriptivevein, and even theseare mire in the nature ofgeneral phenomenological description than of theoretical explanation. There are no questions relating to contemporary chemical theory. Although chemical theory was in a relatively primitive and unsettled state in 1894, some attention could nevertheless have been given to this area, had the instructor desired it. For in-
' Corresponding author. Current address:
FL 32763.
115
Northlake Drive,
Apt. 210-8,
Orange City.
Final Examination in Chemistry. Senior Class.
March 21, 1894.
1. Describe two (2) experiments which show the difference batween "mechanical" and "chemical" force. 2. What ere the allotropic forms of carbon? (b) Write the properties of each. (c) What are the compounds of carbon wiM oxygen? (d) Write the chemical and physical properties of each. 3. k what waysmay chemical action manifest itself? (b) Descrlbe experiments to iilustrate y c h . 4. What is soap? (b) What is the chemical action of soap? (c)Upon what does the value of a soap depend? (d) What is the best alkali to use in washing flannels, and why? 5. What are the common chemical operations? (b) Define each. 6. Chemically speaking, what is water? (b) Upon what properties does its value depend? ( c )What foreign substances are usually found in well water? Id) How may we detect Me presence of each?
7. Describe sulphuric acid, stating (a) how it Is prepared; (b) its properties; (c) its uses. 8. Nameand give the test for asalt from (a) hydrochloric acid and zinc; (b) nitric acid and lead; (c) sulphuric acid and copper: (d) carbonic acid and ammonia. (e)Write the chemical formulae for all substances mentioned.
9. What chemical changes are involvad in bread-making? (b) Explain why bread is sometimes sour? (c) Write the reactions for (a) and (b). 10. Name and give the symbols of the elements studied. (b) Give the characteristic propelties of each.
An 1894 chemistry examination.
stance, a question on the rudiments of atomic theory would have been appropriate. 4) There is a complete absence of computational problems. Again, the relative immaturity of quantitative chemistry might he adduced as an explanation, but computational problems involving the gas laws and stoichiometry, and particularly calculations of chemical formulas from weight composition data might have been expected of the 1894 student. 51 Thereart. noquestimr that require the student t o utilire reasoning i k i l l v in arriving at hgiesl rmrlusiona [rum given facts. Nutof thi, kind ruuld have withitandinc that iwx simvlc . queutioni . been derived from early qualitative analysis, for example, no originality or reasoned decision-makingis asked; only rote memory is required. By modern standards, all these features would b e viewed a s either weaknesses or as impractical testing procedure (e.g., reliance on essay-type questions). Yet, one cannot b u t be favorably struck by t h e solid emphasis placed upon obVolume 63
Number 12
December 1986
1023
servable properties and the practical applications of substances; by the elegant simplicity and pure straightforwardness ofthe questions; and by the ample opportunity afforded the student to gain practice in expressing his thoughts in understandable prose. These factors might lead one to question whether our modern examinations in introductory chemistry do not stray too often t o the opposite extremes of overemohasis on theorv. vaeue and sometimes trickv auestions, and multiple-ch&e Grmats which do virtual& nothing to help develop essential communication skills. Discussion and Conclusions The most prominent feature of this examination is its overwhelming emphasis on descriptive chemistry. Why this bias existed is worth considering. Whether it was due to personal predilection of the instructor, to the particular situation at Wake Forest, or to more general circumstances, are questions that might be answered in part by a study of contemvorarv examinations from other sources. Unfortunately, bur search of the chemical education literature yielded no samples of 19th century American chemistry examinations for comparison. Brady3 and Uzzel14, however, have recentlv vublished studies of some 19th centurv British chemis&i examinations (covering 1857 through 1898), and the resemblance of these tests, in both form and content, to the Wake Forest examination is striking. Brady, for example, presents the following typical questions: Deserihe the preparation and properties of the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen. Explain the preparation and purification of metallic antimony. How is glycerine prepared from fats? And in what proportions does it combine with acids? Both authors note that this style of questioning persisted through the most recent (1898) examinations they studied. ~ r a d i s t a t e thar s yewrally the.'exarnination ques;ions were heavily biased towards testing the students' recall of factual information", that there were "few questions which tested his reasoning powers to any extent", and that the main emphasis was on "descriptive chemistry (rather than on problem-solving of any sort)", with "a relative neglect of the auantitative asDect of cherni~trv."~ It seems likely, then, that a bias favoring the descriptive was a general trait of 19th centurv chemistrv examinations. If so, there is no reason to attribke that bias in the Wake Forest examination to any peculiarity of its author or of Wake Forest College, or, for that matter, to the sway of any kind of distinctively American pragmatism. General biases usually have more fundamental causes. In this case, that cause was probably the low stature of chemical theory in the eyes of many 19th century chemists. Despite considerable theoretical activity during this period, there was uncertainty and skepticism in regard t o its ultimate importance and utility-an attitude understandably deriving from the relative fruitlessness of the orevious centurv of theoretical endeavor. A hundred after ~avoisier'sdeath in 1794, there still was no satisfactory explanation for most chemical bonding, and the few theoretical successes that could be claimed (e.g., the atomic theory of Dalton and a definitiveset of atomic weights) were achieved a t the cost of prolonged and bitter controversy. With the passage of time, even those advances seemed mire and more inadequate to treat the proliferation of problems facing chemistry. A reasonable explanation, then, for a bias to descriptive and practical chemistry in 19th century examinations is that most chem-
Brady, D. 6. Educ. Chem. 1977, 14,76.
'Uzzeli, F. C. Educ. Chern. 1980, 17,17. 1024
Journal of Chemical Education
Original examination.
ists did not believe chemical theory was firmly enough established, or yet useful enough, to deserve significant attention in introductory chemistry courses. Furthermore, as the practice of quantitative and computational chemistry has usually followed from established theoretical foundations, the absence of these facets from 19th century examinations is likewise understandable. A Final Comment A surprising result of this work was our discovery of the scarcity of published studies (even copies) of chemistry examinations prior to the 1920's. Indeed, the only existing work on 19th century examinations we found was that of Brady3 and Uzzel14. Old American examinations probably exist, but without published references to such collections their nature and locations remain unknown to the chemical community at large. As far as we are aware, there has been no attempt in the United States to locate, catalog, or study chemistrv examinations dating orior to the earlv 1900's. In view of the singular perspectivethese documen& afford, an effort of this kind seems aporopriate. The authors invite with any readers who correspondence (addressed GK.G.E.) might share this interest. Acknowledgment The authors wish to acknowledge the kind and generous assistance extended to them in the course of this investigation by Hallie Arrington, Assistant Registrar, and John W. Nowell, Jr., Professor of Chemistry, both of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
:
..
