EDUCATION
Educational Software Project Emphasizes Chemistry SERAPHIM aims to help chemical educators by collecting, producing, and disseminating instructional software for microcomputers Ward Worthy, C&EN Chicago
"If progress in chemical education had kept pace with progress in computer hardware, we would be able to prepare an ACS-certified B.S. chemist with one course in one quarter/' says John W. Moore, a professor of chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti. Obviously, that hasn't happened. During the past 25 years, Moore points out, computing speeds have increased by a factor of 200. Computing "power," in terms of cost, size, and energy requirements per bit, has grown at least 10,000-fold. But, despite the advent of computer-
Moore; developing a model system 34
June 25, 1984 C&EN
related instructional materials for chemistry, and despite the wide availability of microcomputers, "we have achieved improvements in speed or quality of learning that are within only a factor of two of what we could do 25 years ago," Moore says. He thinks chemical educators can do better with their microcomputers, and he intends to help them do it. Moore plans to provide this help t h r o u g h Project SERAPHIM, of which he is director. (SERAPHIM is an acronym for Systems Engineering Respecting Acquisition and Propagation of Heuristic Instructional Materials.) With funds provided by the National Science Foundation's development in science education program, he, codirector Joseph J. Lagowski (of the University of Texas, Austin), and other SERAPHIM investigators are d e v e l o p i n g a model system for identifying, producing, evaluating, and disseminating modular, microcomputer-based instructional materials. There are other nonprofit purveyors of educational software—for example, CONDUIT, based at the University of Iowa. But apparently none of the others are so specifically aimed at chemistry teachers. In any event, Moore says, it was clear, from the time the project began in 1982, that many chemistry teachers at all levels were eager to learn about and use microcomputers but didn't know where to turn for information. So one important function of SERAPHIM is to serve as a clearinghouse, to help bring together producers and potential users of instructional software. "We have collected a list of all the instructional chemistry software we can find," Moore says. "We have collected software from diverse au-
thors and are disseminating it in the public domain. We have set up a review system for software. And we are cooperating with distribution centers, in the U.S. and abroad, to make microcomputer-based materials as widely available as possible." So far, more than 3200 software lists have been distributed. Currently, the list—available on request— contains some 200 program packages, which can be obtained from SERAPHIM or from other sources. SERAPHIM itself has about 87 software modules, on subjects ranging from h i g h school chemistry t h r o u g h physical and polymer chemistry, that it distributes at cost. However, many of these programs have been contributed by authors who aren't in a position to distribute them themselves. Others have been submitted as entries in SERAPHIMsponsored program contests. "Most of the programs haven't been fully debugged and user-tested," Moore says. "They may be quite good—or they may not." To help chemistry teachers find the best software, whether from commercial or noncommercial sources, SERAPHIM has undertaken a user review effort. Generally, Moore says, software modules are reviewed by two people representing different constituencies. For example, an introductory chemistry program might be reviewed by a high school teacher and also by a college teacher. Programs are rated for usefulness, accuracy and completeness of content, ease of use, documentation, reliability, and flexibility. The reviews also report student reactions to the programs and make recommendations for improvement. Some of the reviews are published in the Journal of Chemical Education; all are or will be available from SERAPHIM as "review modules."
Attending SERAPHIM's symposium-workshop were (clockwise from left) chemistry professors Robert A. Alberty, MIT; John I. Gelder, Oklahoma State University; Richard Cornelius, Wichita State University; chemistry teacher Paul Groves, South Pasadena High School, Calif.; and chemistry professor Paul Schatz, University of Wisconsin, Madison In addition to helping users, the review process also helps establish standards for software and furnishes useful guidance to software producers. For people who are learning to write software, SERAPHIM offers a few utility programs—a program to teach data entry techniques, for example—to help prevent some of the "reinventing of the wheel" that otherwise would occur. SERAPHIM also does a fair amount of missionary work. For example, it organizes and conducts workshops to train teachers in the use of microcomputers, to acquaint them with existing instructional materials, and to encourage them to write their own programs. This summer, it will run a one-week workshop for high school teachers; the participants will be obligated to set up and run similar workshops for other teachers in their home regions. In addition, the project organizes symposia for presentation at American Chemical Society national and regional meetings and other suitable forums. Just last month, SERAPHIM held what it called a powwow, a combination symposium-workshop that brought together chemistry teachers, research chemists, programers, learning experts, and representatives of computer hardware and software companies to examine the current status of computer use in chemical education and to recommend appropriate directions for future efforts. Some of the recommendations fell
into the "pie in the sky" category, although it should be noted that computer technology has a history of bringing pie down to Earth, often in a surprisingly short time. However, a number of the group's suggestions were quite feasible, even with existing hard- and software technology. Scott Owen, of Atlanta University, argued in a lecture presentation for a modular approach to programing; that is, writing small sections of computer code that can be used in many programs. For example, analytical instruments, whatever their function, usually have many comp o n e n t s in common: detectors, amplifiers, integrators, recorders, and the like. Machine-language "modules" simulating the actions of each of these components could be combined as needed for instrument simulation programs. In fact, instrument simulation techniques offer an attractive alternative to expensive real instruments for training students in their use. At least one such program is already available: a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer simulator developed by Paul Schatz at the University of Wisconsin. At the powwow, one workshop subgroup focused on that topic, identifying at least 25 types of instrument for which simulation programs would be useful in teaching. The subgroup suggested three approaches to instrument simula-
tion: a "Link trainer" version that accurately simulates what a real instrument does when its controls are manipulated; a tutorial version, to lead students stepwise through the instrument's operation; and a lecturedemonstration version, to be used to show how to operate a general type of instrument. Also, the addition of videodisc technology could help provide realistic simulation. Another subgroup proposed that SERAPHIM establish a computer conferencing network—which has been tradenamed CHYMNET (an acronym for Communication Hookup Yielding Many New Educational Techniques)—to provide rapid dissemination of information and to facilitate communication among chemical educators. Users would enter keywords to retrieve items of interest. According to Moore, this can be done, using software already available through the University of Michigan. He hopes that CHYMNET can begin operation this fall. • June 25, 1984 C&EN
35
Education
ACS study affirms aging of research instruments The American Chemical Society has added its voice to the growing hue and cry over instrument obsolescence at U.S. colleges and universities with the release of a study that probes the instrumentation needs of 103 chemistry departments (C&EN, June 18, page 6). The two-year study affirms that instruments used for chemical research and education are becoming outdated because of their age and the rapid evolutionary changes occurring in technology. The society estimates that 570 ACS-accredited chemistry departments—100 at major institutions and 470 at smaller schools—will need a total of about $149 million to meet their instrumentation needs during the next two to five years. This figure does not even include such major ancillary costs as maintenance. The $149 million figure is an extrapolation from data garnered from a much smaller number of chemistry departments. To be exact, ACS sent survey questionnaires to 187 chemistry and chemical engineering departments. It received responses from chemistry departments at 32 large schools and 71 small schools. (Only 13 chemical engineering departments responded; these data are not included in the report
as they are too skimpy to allow reliable statistical analysis to be done.) The data indicate that obsolescence of instruments is a real problem. The mean age of instruments in major research departments responding to the survey is 8.2 years. Instruments at smaller schools are, on average, slightly older: 8.9 years for all instruments and more than 10 years for the seven most commonly mentioned instruments (ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer, gas chromatograph, nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, infrared spectrophotometer, mass spectrometer, liquid chromatograph, and atomic absorption spectrometer). "A widely held estimate for the optimum useful life of a typical research instrument is about seven or eight years/' the report notes. Thus, by today's standards, instruments in U.S. chemistry departments are too old. Retaining instruments much beyond their optimum useful life is unwise because proper maintenance can become more difficult and the instrument "probably has become technologically obsolete" anyway, the report explains. Instrument maintenance apparently is a dire problem, particularly at smaller schools where the equipment tends to be older and trained
Inventory, needs of top seven instruments often at odds % of total inventory
0
5 T
10
% of total needs
15
T
20
20
(
j
15
10
5
0
UV-Vis spectrophotometer Gas chromatograph NMR spectrometer IR spectrophotometer Mass spectrometer Liquid chromatograph
U
Atomic absorption spectrometer J • 36
I
Major chemistry departments June 25, 1984 C&EN
I •
L
Smaller chemistry departments
technicians are "all but nonexistent/' The survey shows that 15% of the instruments at smaller chemistry departments and 9% at major departments were not fully operational. The seven most commonly mentioned instruments figure prominently both in chemistry departments' inventories and needs. These instruments account for about 73% of the equipment at smaller schools and about 55% at large institutions. They also constitute 73% of the instruments needed at smaller chemistry departments and about 58% at major schools. NMR spectrometers dominate the needs list in both types of chemistry departments. The ACS survey also reveals how chemistry departments plan to use newly acquired instruments. In major departments, new instruments are needed mainly for research training (60%) and only 28%> are to be used for both research training and undergraduate instruction together. Smaller chemistry departments, on the other hand, have the greatest need for instruments that can be applied to both uses together (69%). The report concludes that a "continuing program to update academic instrumentation is needed if we are to provide academic researchers with tools that are sophisticated enough to deal with today's complex scientific challenges, and provide an educational experience that is relevant to employment in industry or p u r s u i t of b r e a k t h r o u g h research." The report says "substantial expenditures" will be needed to reverse the tide of instrument obsolescence. It encourages the federal government to continue supporting instrument purchases, but also recommends that schools explore additional ways of financing instrument acquisitions. Grants for purchases, it cautions, should allow for maintenance costs. The ACS report, "Instrumentation Needs of Academic Departments of Chemistry," was produced by a joint task force of the Committee on Science and the Committee on Chemistry & Public Affairs. Copies of the report are available by writing Justin Collat, Director, ACS Membership Division, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. •
