DIVISION OF LABOR MAXSm.%u,NEWHAVENHIGHSCHOOL, NEWHAVEN,CONNECTICUT
"Division of Labor" raises and discusses the question as to what part of the teaching job should be done by the teacher and what @rt by the textbook. The aduantages of a definite decision on this question are discussed and it is suggested as a topic for serious consideration by chemistry teachers. The author giwes his own opinion suggesting that the real teaching be done by the teacher; that the textbook serve the two-fold purpose of (1) giving a clear-cut resum6 of minimum essentials and (2) providing a series of drill exercises and questions; that collateral reading be used to develop each student along his own line of interest. Possible objections to the plan suggested are also discussed.
. . . . . .
What is the relationship that should exist in our academic triangletextbook, teacher, pupil? Too little thought has been given to a suitable statement of this theorem and to its satisfactory solution. Like the alchemists in their independent searches for the philosopher's stone, writers of textbooks and teachers have sought the key to successful performance of educational transmutations. And yet, questions of paramount importance have neither been raised nor settled. If we are to attain our ends most effectively and ecouomically from the point of view of time and effort on the part of teacher and pupil, the question of the proper division of labor between textbook, teacher, and pupil should be attacked. What is the function of the textbook in chemistry? Is it an instrument which, placed in the hands of the uninitiated, will develop and maintain interests which will lead him to the attainment of certain skills through the study of its explanations and theexecution of its exercises? What is the function of the chemistry teacher? Is i t to make assignments in the textbook and hear recitations, to make demonstrations and give lectures, to supervise laboratory work, and last but not least, to measure and pass judgment on the satisfactory attainment of skills? It seems to me that this question is fundamental. Too many poor results in our schools are due to this indefinite division of labor. Each teacher assigns a different job to the textbook, depending on his personal notion of its function. The poor book, driven by the author's desire to please and by economic pressure, tries to serve all of these masters. It undertakes tasks far beyond its powers and is forced to use so many words that i t becomes unwieldy, although the average teacher does not notice it. For he understands it perfectly. Written by an authority and having the prestige of the printed page behiid it, i t is a thing sacred and its precepts must be carried out. And so the teacher becomes a task maker and a tester: he assigns lessons and hears recitations. To those who succeed in carrying through his program he metes out credit; to the others--ex527
528
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
M m w , 1931
hortation, invective, and punishment. His lot is not a happy one, nor is that of his pupils. What is the solution? The problem of teaching effectively and economically involves factors which are so many and so varied, that a general solution cannot and need not be given. But it would help much if the question of the proper division of labor between teacher and text were settled with some degree of definiteness. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate consideration and discussion of this topic among teachers. The JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION might well solicit opinions on this question and appoint a committee to tabulate the results. I venture the opinion formed as a result of my own studies. I would liken the pupil to the rough stone (and there are many varieties), the teacher to the sculptor, the textbook to the various tools and drills which are needed for the completion of the statue. The tools must be wieldy, pointed, and effective, each in carrying out its particular function. I t is doubtful whether a machine will ever be invented which will take the place of the artist's touch. The function of the teacher is to teach. He must develop a nice blending of classroom procedures: motivation, direct tuition, demonstration, drill, laboratory work, collateral reading, and oral and written testing. The function of the textbook is two-fold. First, it presents concisely, though completely, the essentials, the sine qua non, of the currently accepted high-school chemistry course. Tabular form is used when possible. It need not be belles lettres. I t is thoroughly objective. Its only embellishments are pictures of those who have made chemical history and diagrams pertinent to the work, such as diagrams of laboratory preparations and commercial processes. It contains what we, as students, used to put down or rather what we should have put down in our lecture notes. I t recalls in no uncertain terms to the student for home deliberation what the teacher has taught by precept and experiment. Secondly, the textbook must contain ample drill in those skills which can be perfected only by repeated use, such as the writing of formulas, equations, and chemical arithmetic. I t should also contain a sufficient number of questions which would lead the student to think along the lines of chemistry and serve as a basis for profitable class discussion after sufficient home deliberation. In this way the time required for making up and giving out assignments will be reduced to a minimum. It may he objected that a textbook of this type will deprive the student of the experience of learning from the printed page, since the teaching is done by the instructor and the book is merely a resume and assignment book. On the contrary, the procedure outliaed above should effect a suffiaent saving of time so that the student will be enabled to do considerable reading of chemical literature, in the form of collateral reading on
VOL. 8, No. 3
DIVISION OF LABOR
529
topics in which he may be interested. Under our present plan, or lack of plan, the student is so weighed down by his textbook work, that he has neither the time nor the inclination to do additional readmg. And thus he loses the opportunity of becoming acquainted with a vast and useful branch of chemical literature. Given such a textbook, the teaching of chemistry becomes considerably simplied for both teacher and pupil. Let us assume that the teacher wishes to present oxygen. Having created a desire, or at least a willingness or inclination, on the part of his pupils to learn about oxygen, he proceeds to a demonstration or a laboratory exercise on the subject. His home assignment in the textbook for the next day is a definite contract between teacher and pupil. It is presented in simple, straightforward, and unmistakable language. An exercise is included which leads the pupil to the use of the information given by teacher and book and to think along the lines of chemistry. When the teacher hears the next recitation, he knows that the assignment was definite and that he may expect specific answers. Here and there, the teacher suggests additional topics for further study. Student A is struck by the teacher's hint that phlogiston proved a stumbling block to the progress of chemical science and believes that history should teach us to avoid mistakes in the future: he offers to make a further study of phlogiston. Student B has become interested in this man Lavoisier who lived and died during the French Revolution and who is called the father of modern chemistry. Student Cis utilitarian and wants to learn exactly how oxygen is gotten from the air for commercial application. D decides to make an exhaustive study of the uses of oxygen in obtaining high temperatures. A great many other topics may be suggested and used. The student makes an intensive study of the topic which he chose and submits his results to the instructor in writing. The teacher uses these reports as he sees fit. He may have them presented to the class. He may place them on reference for other students to read. He may have them printed in the student publication. In this way the willing student begins the type of research which he will have to do when he enters his vocation. He becomes familiar with reference books on chemistry; he learns to use the printed page and to organize his results. It may also be objected that the procedure outlined above is inadequate for the new or inexperienced teacher of chemistry. I t is no more so than the present method which merely obscures his dii5culties and places an undue burden on the pupil. For the new teacher, we need less literature on education in general and more on the specific teaching of chemistry. A textbook of the type described may be published at a much reduced price. The saving so effected may be used in many ways. Some of the money saved may be used for the building up of a satisfactory chemistry library. New type tests are rapidly being accepted by progressive teachers
530
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1931
as essential teaching devices. Unfortunately, the expense involved in their purchase has proved a serious handicap to their use. The saving on the price of textbooks may be diverted for this useful purpose. This paper must not be construed as an attack on our textbook writers who have labored honestly and earnestly for the improvement of chemistry teaching. It is hoped, however, that teachers will cast aside their traditional notions regarding chemistry textbooks and approach in the same scientific spirit as they do their chemical researches this question: what is the function of the teacher and what is the function of the textbook?
