What Chemistry Really Is
A
look at the chemical education literature reveals that approximately every third generation of teachers has to struggle anew with the issue of the significance and relevance of the laboratory in introductory courses. At,tacks against the inclusion of lahoratory work often are based on three lines of argument. The first is economic and includes not only the monet,ary expense of operating the laboratory, but also the appreciable investment in staff time and effort. The second argument is pedagogic and based on the dissatisfact,ion of many teachers with the results of their laborat,ory programs. Supporters of this argument emphasize that given the conditions under which the laboratory must be conducted, it is frustratingly difficult to get students to perform thoughtfully rather than mechanically, and that it is prohibitively burdensome to develop and sustain programs that even approach in sophist,ication the kind of creative activity that is representative of chemistry today. Some members of t,his group claim that nothing will be lost and that something might be gained by dropping thc laborat,ory. Evaluations of the efficacy of the laboratory by psychologists have not confirmed this claim, nor have they silenced it. The third argument, largely philosophical, proceeds from the idea that laboratory work offers nothing more than technical training and that consequently it is inappropriate as part of a liberal education. Against these arguments defenders of the laboratory hold that chemistry is an experimental science, that to gain any understanding of its principles or to develop any mature appreciation of its contribution students must encounter at least some phenomena first-hand and under conditions that compel contemplation. These defenders reject the notion that mere observation of phenomena and development of skills are the primary aims of the laboratory in the introductory courses, and they insist that teaching students how and what to see may be just as important as teaching them how to think. Mechanical performance by students probably speaks more to the limitations of the instructor than to the inadequacy of the method. The student who fails to think in the laboratory has been only a visitor, not a participant. To the argument that the introductory laboratory can be no more than a cheap imitation of modern science activity, they respond that no one
editorially speaking
can become an investigator all a t once, but that even modest laboratory programs can develop the talents and attitudes which promote accurate and enlightened observation, and which so stimulate the synthesis of observation and thought that they foster the translation of this synthesis into sensible action. While others may regard these arguments as trite, the defenders of the laboratory accept them as fundamental articles of faith reaffirmed by each new class of students. There is reason to be concerned about the continuing erosion of this reaffirmation, however. Students today seem to want instant experience without participation. They seem to expect a three-hour laboratory period to supply the same kind of intense involvement without participation as a three-hour movie or a threehour ball game. And they look for quick answers and big payoffs. Not many laboratory programs are designed to meet these expectations though this is not to say that the subject matter does not lend itself to programs that can capture the spirit and imagination of today's students. The question is not whether the laboratory programs should be redesigned to regain student interest but how instructor interest in the laboratory can be revived to meet this challenge. Perhaps it is fortuitous that at a time when student interest is hard to capture, instructor interest also seems to be diminishing. We understand that recent efforts by several groups in the Division of Chemical Education to reexamine and to revitalize laboratory work in the introductory courses have been surprisingly, perhaps even unprecedentedly, unproductive. If this indifference is widespread and continues, there would appear to be little wisdom in continuing the laboratory in introductory courses. Such a development could hardly be viewed as an improvement in chemistry instruction for it would come not as a conscious effort to upgrade the courses but as a consequence of a shifting of values in the academic community. The forces behind this shift have created excellent opportunities for us all. I t would be naive to think that they would bring nothing but good, and we would be wise to think carefully before discontinuing the laboratory in the introductory courses. All told, this probably is where most of the students discover what chemistry really is. WTL Volume
46,Number 3, March 7 969
/
127
