AN INVESTIGATION OF STUDY METHODS USED BY HIGHSCHOOL CHEMISTRY STUDENTS OTIS A.
CROSBY, WESTERNSENIOR HIGHSCHOOL, DETROIT, MICAIGAN
Many illuminating and startling articles have appeared concerning the college freshman chemistry student entering with one year's credit in high-school chemistry. Has the student been benefited by his early training in this science? The generalized conclusion seems to be a negative one and yet what is the cause? Has a year's work been ruthlessly wasted? Is i t due to poor presentation, inefficient textbooks, inadequate equipment? Possibly so, but let us see just how the student has studied the lessons which have been assigned under the present tutelage and existing conditions. To this end a questionnaire containing twenty-five questions covering practically every phase of the study of chemistry was circulated among 170 students of chemistry in one of Detroit's oldest high schools. The classes in which these students recited were under the supervision of three different instructors. The students were asked to sign the questionnaire but with the understanding that the information therein disclosed would in no way be connected with their grades. It was presented purely as a piece of minor research in which they were to furnish the virgin information. Due to the length of this article not all questions will he repeated. In response to the statement, "On an aoerage I spend i n the preparation of m y chemistry lessons (a) about 15 minutes, (b) one-half hour, (c) one hour, ( d ) one and one-half hours, (e) two hours, ( f ) more than two hours," it was found that 10 students spend 15 minutes, 58 one-half hour, 62 one hour, and 5 one and one-half hours. One hundred &y they read the lesson twice, 39 once, and 23 three times. One-half the students indicate that they study chemistry in the same manner they study other subjects. 30% say they make a daily outline; 21 study chemistry in the A.M., 33 the P.M., 61 in the evening, and 42 whenever convenient. The vote was 50-50 concerning the difficulty of studying a t home. To the query "Do you often notice afiplication of the subject matter, e. g., mouies, aduertisements, etc?" 137 replied in the affirmative and 25 in the negative. The count was 2-1 in "Do you underscore the text?" Perhaps one of the outstanding disclosures came in answer to the question "Do yon really think the laboratory exercises helped you to better understand the text?" 146, yes, 24, no. The same number reported likewise concerning the value of pictures in text. Again, 132 say they benefited materially from student reports in class while 24 say no. To illuminate the much-discussed problem of the value of laboratory work the following question was asked: "Do you think you would learn more from the experiment on oxygen by hawing the instructor demonstrate it 587
688
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCII, 1930
i n class than by pevfovming it yourself i n the laboratory?" 102 say lecturedemonstration while 59 choose the laboratory. The opinion was 3-1 that reason predominates over memory in chemistry. 79 students have a definite time for studying their lesson while 82 study whenever convenient. 111 say they study the questions a t the end of the chapter while 52 do not. Regarding the reading of chapter summaries, eight students maintain that they read them before they read the chapter, 10 during the reading of the chapter, 131 after having read the chapter, 7 whenever they don't have time to read the lesson, and two students say they never read them. In conclusion the writer desires to call attention to the number of dissenting or adverse opinions cast in the matter of several questions. I t appears that 24 students throughout practically the entire set of questions have given adverse answers. By means of the student's names appearing on each paper the final grade of that student was secured from his respective instructor, thus making possible a check-up and it was found that with but two exceptions these opinions were cast by failing students. Likewise a check on the students that indicated they studied one and one-half hours, read the lesson twice and made daily outlines, etc., showed "B" or "A" students. In view of these findings it would seem the interrogative conclusion would follow: Is it a matter of "how to study" as much as merely a matter of "study"? For apparently many failing students do not devote more than a few minutes each day to the preparation of their chemistry lesson. J'
Try to Toughen Skin against X-Ray Doses. Experiments t o toughen the skin or decrease its sensitivity to X-rays, which are being made in the hope of increasing the amount of radiation used for treating tumors of the body, were described by Dr. Edith H. Quimby and Dr. George T. l a c k of New York City a t the recent meeting in Toronto of the Radiological Society of North America. I n treatine deep tumors by radiation, either X-ray or radium, the raw must Dass through skin and normal t i s u e s belure marhinr: the dw~asedO ~ F Dr. , Quimby explained. Thc amount that c m he used i n trratmrnt i.; limitd h v the amount thc jktn will tulcrate. This amount is frequently not enough to have the desired effect on the tumor. One method that gave satisfactory results was that of using combinations of different types of radiation in treating cases, rather than relying on a single type. The method was checked by the use of physical instruments which measured accurately the constancy of the radiation dose given. The effects produced an the skin with a constant quantity of radiation were estimated in 100 tests. I t was found that i t took ane-third mare radiation to produce a mild effect on the skin when both hard and soft X-rays and hard and soft radium rays were used in equal proportions than when either one alone was used. This demonstrated a real increase in skin tolerance which could not be explained on purely physical grounds, Drs. Quimby and Pack concluded.-Science Service
