A Teacher's View of Project Advance Chemistry Albert J. Snow 216 Dante Avenue. Tuckahoe, NY 10707 The Advanced Placement (A.P.) Program has bridged the gap between traditional high school preparation in chemistry and introductory college chemistry by going beyond the basic knowledge and skills. Since the suggested syllabus for an A.P. chemistrv course parallels the American Chemical Society's recomm&dationi for first-year college chemistry cours&' A.P. offers, through its qualifying exam, advanced entry into undergraduate c&ses. However, currently, the only formal mechanism for the evaluation of specific A.P. courses is through grades obtained by the students on this A.P. Evaluation exam. The laboratory component of the A.P. course is almost nonexistent. I believe the A.P. exam to be excellent, because the student must demonstrate knowledee and comnrehension of content and the application of principles and problem-solving skills a t the hieher coenitive levels (svnthesis. analvsis. and evaluu ation). Yet the exam alone has a major flaw for it cannot demonstrate lahoratory skill, the give-and-take of discussion, practical simulations, and the science communication process eenerated hv teacher-pupil interaction. The ~ r o j k c t~ d v & c eChemistry program of Syracuse University is what I would term a second-generation advanced placement program which works to remedy this flaw. Project Advance (P.A.) develops an active two-way partnership between a university chemistry department &id a high school classroom teacher. A watch word here may be "course comparability;" that is, comparability of the high school course to the Chemistrv 106, 107, 116, and 117 as offered on the Syracuse campus.2 All aspects of lecture laboratory, recitations, exams, grading policy,and student-teacher evaluations are essentially the same nt the participating high school as they are on the Syracuse campus.
Teachers in general expressed positive attitudes and good impressions of the P.A. course. A summary of the results appear below. I t is not surprising that questions about the coverage of certain topics for scope and depth elicited mixed feelings. In a follow-up survey conducted by Syracuse University on students who took P.A. courses, positive attitudes and high regard for the experience were also noted.3 The complementary result of these two surveys was not surprising, since enthusiastic teachers with nositive attitudes should have a positive influence on the students who take the course.
-
-
A Unique Opportunity At a recent seminar conducted for P.A. Chemistry teachers a t Syracuse (part of the twice-a-year seminars conducted hy the P.A. staff), I conducted a survey of my P.A. colleagues concerning their impressions of the program. Having taight hoth A.P. and P.A. Chemistry for a number of years, I had questions about the effectivenessof several aspect9 of the P.A. course. I thus developed and administered a peer review survey to the teachers that were present. Only the response of teachers actively involved in the teaching of P.A. Chemistry were processed, although all administrators, back-up teachers, and P.A. staff were given copies of the survey. I t should he noted that this survey was intended to record the opinions of experienced high school chemistrv teachers who had taueht such advance level chemistry courses for a number of years and were competent in iudee the relative effectiveness of the P.A. Drorram in their
' "Advand Placement Come Desaiotion. Mav 1982. The Colleae -
Board." Service. -~~ ~. Educational Testino "~~ ~~. ~rikethn. ~~~. NJ ~~~~
~
~
~~
~
"Pr0;ect Advance Co lege Courses In The High School." Center for 1nstruct;onalDevelopment. Syracuse Un'vers'hl. 1979. Mercurlo. Josepn A,. How Do Gradales of Syracuse Universily Project Advance Do In College? A Follow-up Study of the Class of 1975," Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Rating Summary of Survey Results tor Project Advance A
B
Sludent. School,Cunicuium
Training. Evaluation, Support
Complements H.S. Science Cuniculum 2. Stimulatesand Challenges Student 3. Motivates Students to Science 4. Adequacy of H.S. Science Facilities 5. Develops Laboratmy Skills 1.
4.4 1. Tests Consistent with
2.
4.1
3.3
Content H.S. Support of P.A.
3.8
Training
3.8
3.7 4. P.A. Support
3.8
3.7 3. P.A.
3.6
C
S ~ pand e Depth of Course Content 1. Matter and Energy 2. Kinetic Molecular Theory 3. Atomic Sbucture 4. Bonding 5. Stoichiomtry 6. Acid-Ease Theory 7. Equilibrium
3.9 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.1 3.1 3.0
8. Kinetics 9. ~hermcdynarnics lo. Inorganic Topics 11. Redox 12. Electrochemistry 13. Cacrdination Chemistry 14. Nuclear 15. hganic (intraduced as a tonic 1983-84)
2.9 2.6 3.8 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.1 1.4
No% 5 Excsllenl, 4 Good. 3 Fair. 2 Pwr. 1 Not At All
Learnlng from Each Mher P.A. Chemistrv. with its solid course foundation, aualified instructors, lines of communication, standardized grading, testing and evaluation procedures, teacherlcourse behavioral surveys, and lecture and laboratory outlines constitute what I consider t o be a vast improvement over the A.P. process. A successful working between secondary schools and universities is not only possible but also yields benefits to both parties. The findings of the survey and many hours of discussion with my P.A. colleagues lends credibility to this view. I feel, however, that the test format used in P.A. examinations leaves somethine to be desired. A multinle-choice format does not allow dem&stratioo of steps in'problem-solving situations, the evaluation of data and graph analysis, or the ability to communicate in writing. A.P. and P.A. could learn from each other. This would he a sten forward for hoth programs. (For more information concerningthe survey and its results, contact the author.) Volume 61 Number 4
A~ril1984
379
