Editorial
Basics or Applications? u
H H I ducation has to be considered as a perpetual H B frontier, else it stagnates and ultimately H H i fails What is taught to our future analytical chemistry scholars and workers as they pass through their undergraduate chemistry experiences will also, and just as indelibly, serve to define future analytical chemistry." (Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 494 A)A I believe these words are still true and, in the interest of a continuing discussion on this issue, was pleased to participate in the NSF workshop, "Curricular Developments in the Analytical Sciences", whose report appeared late last year (Anal. Chem. 1998 70, 176 A-77 A). The workshop included representatives from many different undergraduate institutions and industry The central recommendation among many others was that "the academic community develop context-based curricula that incorporate problem-based learning fl^RL) " In analytical chemistry PRT translated
in brief to teaching by way of analytical prnhlem-
solvins- examples The workshop report has thought-provoking things to say, but I do not see it as the end of a debate that is pervasive in the teaching of the sciences. The traditional approach to teaching focuses on the exposition of knowledge and principles, with minor illustrations of real-life applications. It assumes that the hardest part of learning for the student is grasping the fundamentals and focuses the formal instruction there. It also assumes that the student is self-motivated to learn. The PBL approach, on the other hand, places the main instructional emphasis on applications, teaching systematic skills for solving a problem—preferably a societally relevant one—and on teamwork. It assumes that the most difficult step in teaching is to motivate the student and that, once motivated, the student can independently find and absorb the fundamentals.
I believe that there is deep truth in both educational approaches and that neither can point to the other as "wrong". Teaching a student how to self-learn is what an education is all about and is, in fact, the accepted mode of graduate education. However, in the absence of a basic foundation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to self-learn above a superficial level. This is true of any branch of chemistry. Some students need motivating, but we equally fail all undergraduates, both in support of their understanding of other chemistry courses and in their future careers, if we do not give them a basic analytical chemistry foundation. To my taste that foundation must include major elements of spectroscopy separations and electrochemistry How can the professor reap the benefits of teaching fundamentals while bringing in elements of PBL without compromising the former? Available time is a very serious constraint. The entire formal lecture time in analytical chemistry for an undergraduate degree in chemistry is about two and one-half solid (40 h) weeks; laboratory time is three to four weeks. Wow! Thatts not much! The NSF curriculum workshop, although a good start, did not come to grips with this problem. So, to the extent that PBL finds its way into the analytical course, analytical faculty simply must be adamant about doing it in a way that does not sacrifice teaching fundamental aspects of our discipline. The debate should not end but continue: "How can the curriculum introduce students to analytical problemsolving in a way that preserves the broad, basic foundation that has served students of analytical chemistry well over the past decades?" This crucial question was posed in the workshop, but not answered.
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, July 1, 1998 4 2 5 A
