CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE CHEMISTRY COURSE: General Considerations
1
"What is needed to upgrade the education of our majors is more a change o f emphasis than a restructuring of content. Much that we are doing now might well remain unchanged, but perhaps the context in which we make many of our presentations could be modified so as to provide stronger ethical and behavioral orientatbns-orientations that emphasize value judgments and behavioral responses that are broader and more sophisticated than has been customary." 50.87 (1973)
WTL SYMPOSIUM PAPER
Henry A. Bent North Carollna State Unlverslty Ralelgh. NC 27650
Basic Philosophy and Acid Remarks Concerning New Curricula
Chemical actions ought to provoke personal reactions. And, A t the McMaster International Conference on "New Diindeed, our more fortunate students do work in laboratorections in the Chemistry Curriculum'' for Introductory ries-a hit. They receive one credit for studying The Kingdom Chemistry, June 1978, I was asked as an opening speaker to of God, three credits for attending Lectures on The Kingdom respond to five questions. of God. 1) Whv do we need a new curriculum? Take an all too2) What parts of chemistry should be in the curriculum? typical advanced-placement student. He writes (in the US.) Curiously, it doesn't much matter, fortunately. For it is as "LD" for lead. "PCO?" for ~otassiumcarbonate. A graduate student mistakes packing-case [ ( ~ g 2 . 3 6 ~ e o . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~impossible l o . ~ ~ ) -to get general agreement on curriculum content as it is unnecessary, perhaps undesirable. The opposite of a (Si~.inAl~.zx)O~o(OH)~]-~~~~[Mgo.:~z(HzO)~.~~]+~~~~ (''vermicgreat curriculum may he a great curriculum. What matters ulite") for liquid bromine. Texts set unwittingly K = In-'(In about a curriculum is chiefly three things: quality, quality, and K)-via (by thermodynamics) K = In-'(- AGoIRT), where quality. often (by experiment) -AGoIRT = In K. And generally, in Of course a curriculum, like science itself, requires materials efforts to operate on the chemistry curriculum with the and a plan. However, "Plans alone [a curriculum] are hut caphysicist's Hamiltonian, stles in the air," noted Mendeleeff, and ''Materials alone [pure descriptive chemistry] are hut useless matter. All depends," continued Mendeleeff, "on concordance of materials with the we generate widespread dismay and disinterest among plan, and execution" (Italics mine) (2). chemistry students. What matters most for beginning students is the teacher We have put too much physics into the chemistry curricuand the text. Relevance of a curriculum is more a matter of lum. For chemistry is intrinsically more interesting than How than What. Nothing presented poorly, however highphysics. powered, is long relevant. Nothing presented well is predictPhysics is a match dropped, chemistry a match struck. Physics is no match for chemistry. Chemistry is more striking ably irrelevant, in the long run. than uhvsics. . . Ask vourself, what hooked me on chemistry? AGO = - K T In K'! hlolecular urhiral theory? Ornnt!xpericnct:akin to Ira l
