George H. Pauli
Lofayette College Eoston, Pennsylvonio 18042
A Special Topic Approach to the Nonscience Major Course
If the number of published articles is an accurate guide, no chemistry course is receiving as much attention as the course for non-majors. As an example of another way of attacking the problems inherent in teaching chemistry to the nonscience student, I would like to report on Chemistry 21, "A Chemical Perspective," offered for the first time a t kafayette College in the fall of 1971. Several articles have illustrated the philosophy we brought to the course (1-3). In brief, we felt that no particular topic in chemistry is absolutely necessary for the non-major course. We wanted to enhance the general education of our students rather than teach technical skills, although technical skills were often necessary to accomplish our major goal. Since nonscience students are often well aware of the accomplishments of science but not of the orocess wherebv scientists a ~ o r o a c hDroblems. thev ofted overreact to the achievements andiailures of thk technical world. We hoped to increase the scientific maturity of the students by showing them some current problems and to analvze these ~roblemsfrom a chemical viewpoint. Chemistry 21 was organized as a three credit course without lab. Students a t Lafayette are no longer required t o take a science course although such a selection is strongly recommended. Thus, the twenty-three students who enrolled did so of their own will. The class was closed to freshmen and with one exception was limited to those who had taken high school chemistrv. Since we wished to emphasize the scientists approach to problems, we decided to out the students in contact with as manv chemists as prakicable. Each department member was-invited to participate in the course as a guest lecturer. Topics, which could be covered in two or three class periods, were chosen on the basis of the lecturer's competence and interest and the anticipated interest and value to the student. Subject balance was obtained by the natural diversity of interests within the department as well as the inclination of some faculty to choose their own topics after seeing the tentative outline of others. The major topics covered were: The Discovery and Meaning of a Scientific Law as Illustrated by Mendeleev, The Greenhouse Effect and Particulate Scattering, The Application and Meaning of Chemical Analysis (as illustrated by chromatography and nesticide analvsis). . . . The Chemistrv of Auto Emissions; Chemical Contraception, The chemistry of Food Additives. A Case Studv of Inoreanic chemistrv Research. The Art o f Applying -chemist& as ~llustraied by the Chemistry of Cake Batters, and Radiation and Health Hazards. Special readings were assigned from the journal Science, Sclence and Imagination f4), and the text (5). As well as being one of the nine lecturers, I served as the primary instructor throughout the semester, guiding the students, making assignments, evaluating work, introducing related subject matter through additional lectures and discussions, and correlating the talks. Students were required to write summaries of each presentation. Audio tape cassettes were made available to anyone who missed a lecture. We hoped that the writing of summaries would 210 / Journal of Chemical Education
stimulate the mental organization of topics without encouraging rote memorization. A term paper and final exam were also required. Of the several advantages of the seminar approach to a non-majors course, four stand out in my mind. By taking each topic from its beginning to its conclusion, we were forced to introduce the important chemical principles as needed and to immediately apply these principles. Those concepts which could not be developed to their modern day importance were automatically eliminated. This makes a difficult cutting job easier. Secondly, since the speaker saw the students only a few times, it was natural to put a little extra effort into each lecture. The liveliness that resulted carried over to the students. There was also a psychological bonus due to the multiple volunteer effort; the students reacted extremelv well to the fact that several faculty members wanted tb communicate their technical expertise to laymen. Finally, in a course that should consider some controversy, the addition of viewpoints from several people knowledgeable in science was very important. Other than the extra workload on faculty not primarily responsible for the course, there were few disadvantages. The individual lecturers did not have the advantage of watching the students throughout the semester and adjusting their approach as the year proceeded. This can be partially overcome with the help of the primary instructor, however. There was also the problem of accumulating proper reading material for the individual topics. This is a problem of any innovative course, and points out the natural reliance on textbook writers to design courses. The most difficult problem was in evaluating student work. I think this is due mainly to the problems of teaching general education rather than technical skills. We must be careful to never let grading interfere with the most effective teaching methods, nevertheless the high degree of subjectivity (and possibly arbitrariness) in grading was bothersome. The students reacted favorably to Chemistry 21. Although one mieht exoect favorable evaluation from responses in an egctive course, the degree to which they exmessed their feelines was encouraeine. Nineteen of the twenty-three gave i c t h e highest t&e bf six ratings as to the course as a whole, with twelve of these evenly divided between the top two. The entire class rated the method of multiole sneakers with the two most favorable choices out of five with eighteen giving it the highest rating. Similarly nineteen students were essentiallv evenlv divided between the top two of five choices on a Btimu~itingto dull scale. In comments, several students claimed to see a unity running through all the talks while enjoying the diversity. A number of students also commented that the course helped them to look a t things in new ways, which illustrates the usefulness of chemistry as a liberal arts course. 'From my viewpoint, except for a few individuals, the quality of student work was quite high throughout the year, being most noticeable in their term papers. In summary, we found it quite practical to present a &
.
course relying on the talents of several people, without running into any major logistics problems. Although such a course requires discipline in planning and timing it is actually quite flexible in that individual topics can he easily changed from year to year. In fact, one is less likely to get into a rut, depending too much on a textbook. In addition, the multiple specialists each keeping up with developments in their own topic makes it possible to keep the course up to date. It was overwhelmindy shown that students enjoy this approach. Finally, suchan approach is easilv a d a ~ t e dto the talents of available faculty as well as outside speakers.
Siemiencow, Dr. G. Earl Peace, Dr. Joseph Sherma, Dr. Thomas G. Miller, Mrs. Joanne Follweiler, Dr. Stephen Fine, Dr. David Crocket, Dr. Laylin K. James) whose enthusiasm, talents and work made Chemistry 21 successful. In addition I would like to acknowledge the general inspiration received from William Kiefer's cultural approach to chemistry (3) and the University of Illinois experimental seminar, "Wednesday Night at the Lab" (6).
Acknowledgment
1-3. (5) Kiefcr. W.
Much credit should be given t o the eight other members of the Lafayette Chemistry Department (Mr. George
Uterature Cited
F.. "Chemistry, A Cultural Appmaeh," Harper and Rau. New Yrnk,
1911. ( 6 ) ChrnieolondEnginr-'$Ne~~, 48.242, p. 10 (1970).
Volume 50, Number 3, March 1973
/
211
