Norman Hackerman, President Rice University
Houston, Texas 77001
Chemistry Instruction in the 70's
W h a t should the goals of chemistry instruction in the 70's be? Clearly it should aim at educating non-chemists as well as educating and training chemists. Certainly it must consider and evaluate the effect of efforts to improve high school chemistry. Certainly it must evaluate the worth of the Chem Study, CBA, and other such programs. It must evaluate what may be an awakened interest of some professional chemists. With this preamble let's discuss college chemistry education by groups of "users." The nonscience underg~aduatemajor constitutes the largest group, especially if n hours of chemistry is a requirement. It may be the largest even if chemistry is within a group of courses which can satisfy a science requirement. This might not hold for fully free electives, in part because of our past treatment of this group. Whether these people have had high school chemistry or not, the treatment should be via familiar objects, e.g., a course based on the automobile such as bas been given by W:H. Wade at the University of Texas, or one on the chemist and his activities or on problems of general concern such as environment, ocean, food, energy, health. Their purpose might be served by a semester of familiarization of the field plus one on science and government. Such new approaches may help overcome
the two world idea. [See Chem. Eng. News (December 14,1970), page 76, for an example whose worth is still to he proved.] Labs should not spread through the year and should do pertinent experiments or be replaced by a few quality demonstrations. On the latter point the reasons given for requiring labs include (i) this is an experimental science and thus students must do experiments to understand (cooking would suffice except for the mystique), (ii) they show the scientific method (doubtful in view of difficulty of getting good quality experiments, besides scientific method is not that restricted), (iii) good diecipliue and trailling in number use and in writing (not bad). But originally the real reason probably was to provide some teaching assistantships. It is important that the best of the faculty, regardless of age or length of service, do these courses because the effect is on the general society. We should be concerned in helping students acquire culture in its broadest sense, that is, developing the ability to live withinone's own time, thus including an appreciat,ion of the arts and literature, but being still more inclusive. Weaver [Science, 126, 1225 (1957)l said " . . . the average citizen tends to fear science when . . . he should learn about it so that it can be an exciting intellectual companion."
Volume 48, Number 10, Odober 1971
/
643
Chemistry and Social Concern
Chemistry courses used as prerequisites for professional and other science training need overhaul also. Here the position has been to squeeze the customer into the mold which we have decided is best for undergraduate chemistry majors. Again the point seems to he that it is good for them to learn the "pure" substance of the field on the premise that basic understanding mill endow the user with knowledge useful for any pursuit. But the failure of this approach is that he is really only peripherally interested and this has a tendency to stifle, not stimulate, since chemistry is not the central interest. Thus, the pre-med, the nurse, the other science majors, the engineer get what the chemist does. Because it combines sections and reduces loads? Because the instructor is more interested in developing majors? Because it takes more time to tailor course material to the specific purpose? No matter now because we must recognize the importance of this service and design appropriate courses or others will do it for us. The undergraduate chemistry major has not been unaffected by our preoccupation with the graduate program. But here there has been much more concern and inclination to be in step with the times. The labs have generally been more imaginative, frequently based on a problem approach rather than with little-related experiments. However, the matter of technique has not been sufficiently stressed in undergraduate labs, perhaps because it runs counter to t,he current anti-discipline tendency. I n all of the above cases the textbooks used have often been those which taught the instructor but have been too subtle or obfuscating to be of help to the student in self-learning. Here is where the greatest gain can he made, namely by using all available resources to reassert the importance of learning as an individual and personal process. Here the chemistry study room with film loops, slides, movies, hooks, and other self-aid devices including laboratory work, is import,ant. Here also is the place where computer assisted study will be critical. Given both ingenuity and money we have a chance in the 70's to reinstitute learning as an individual process withinthe lock step system now necessitated by numbers. We might even become ingenious enough to reinstate testing to its most noble purpose-to advise the individual of his state of understanding of the field by variable and instant grading of responses by use of the computer. Consider the possibility of an instant "no" to which an alternative answer can he returned, or of partial credit on imaginative multiple choice questions. Here lies the possibility of grading on understanding and not on memory alone. Our system should have as its purpose t,he conversion of knowledge to wisdom, best done by a kind of Socratic process available to each individual. Incidentally, we must emphasize for our neophytes that an information explosion does not exist,, but instead that we are experiencing an informat.,ion compression where greater understanding reduces the necessity for remembering innnmerable, isolated facts. At the graduate level we have shown deeper but st,ill
644
/
Journal o f Chemicol Education
selfish interest. We have focussed on the degree designed to provide faculty, the PhD, to its detriment and almost to the destruction of the Master's degree. It is best here to deal briefly with what we do vis $ uis what the world needs and let glancing reference to the numerous studies and reports on this matter suffice. The several associations concerned with graduate education, ACE, AAU, AGS, etc. and the professional sbcieties, -ACS, SPE, AlChE, etc. have each addressed the problem in more or less serious fashion. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in a special report dated January 1971, makes certain specific recommendations regarding post-graduate work and degrees. An ad hoc group brought toget,herby theNationa1 Academy of Sciences has made one or two firm recommendations in this regard. The nub of the problem is the "pure" research orientation of the PhD versus the need for problem solvers and university faculty who are not devoted solely to research. The first might be solved by developing a practitioner's degree and t,he latter by developing a degree which is neither the PhD, the practitioner's doctorate, nor the Doctor of Education. The practitioners degree should parallel other postbaccalaureate professional degrees. It would take a fixed time and provide prescribed experiences including forefront laboratory method and research'of the type most uftr:n found in mission-oriented laboratories. I t would have the flexibility to include aspects of law, management, economics, and the like as needed or desired by the individual. The other degree, akin to the fledgling Doctor of Arts, would include that just described and be flexible enough to provide time for study of individual and group behavior. Of utmost importance would he the recognition that neither of these degrees involves people of lower stature than those who go the PhD route. The difference is not in quality of mind or perception, but in interest. Thus, the conclusions on which to base chemistry instructing during these next nine years are chemistry group-must provide 1) A singlc medium-the bnckgraund itndorstanding, training, m d in-depth instruction for the variety of people to be exposed to the study of mbtter and i t i transfrmnations; thus, chemistry instmctitm has a service function ns well a a progenitor function. So it must serve those who need a deeper understanding af the field fur purposes ehemicnl as well os non-chemical. 2 ) All research is not important or beneficial and all proMem solving is nuL trivial. . 3). Without developing an antipathy to research whclse only vls!ble ahieobive is to nibble at the s t o c k ~ i l eof ianorauce we must develop i n understanding that society' canno; do wilhout the chemist (scientist). The need for fond, fiber, and fuel (energy) aknw md
