Graduate study and College Teaching
provocative opinion
How does graduate education in chemistry relate to the preparation of future college teachers? The report on graduate education in chemistry compiled by the 1970 International Conference on Education in Chemistry stated (1) The heart of graduate education in chemistry is the doctoral program. It has had tremendous success in producing creative innovative people. It has been central to the acquisition of new knowledge and has deeply probed the structure, properties, and behavior of matter. The American approach to doctoral education stems from the European systems and exhibits great vigor and productivity. The fundamental science thus derived is basic to our understanding of nature and to pioneering efforts and longterm growth of chemical technology and thus is essential to the public welfare. This report, from the largest conference on chemical edu-. cation in history, failed to mention that graduate education is, or should he, concerned with the preparation of teachers of chemistrv. Nowhere in the report is any hint given that something need be done to improve the education of future chemistrv teachers (particularlv teachers in & -as distinguished from the two- and f ~ u r - ~ e colleges teachers in the universities with -maduate departments of chemistry). Picture the student entering school, ready to - maduate pursue his career in chemistry. Suppose he wants to teach on the college level. The normal preparation is an advanced degree in chemistry. What programs are available? Looking in the course catalog, he sees he can direct his studies-in any of the traditional areas of specialization. He chooses the field he finds the most exciting and a research director with whom he can work well. He takes the required courses, gets the research under way, and gains whatever teaching experience he can by being a teaching assistant. But does a better way exist to prepare for a teaching position? This is a rather brash idea! All today's chemistry teachers went along the same route. What makes him so special? He looks a t the ambitions of the students around him. Many want to remain in the universities. As graduate students, they spend four or five years observing and being a part of a university chemistry department. Several of his colleagues want to work in industry. Most of them have industrial experience through summer jobs and visits with industrial chemists. Our graduate student begins to feel sorry for himself. Why aren't there any programs for prospective college teachers? One Ieasonhas mentioned' everyone believes today's system is doing a good job of providing chemists for the colleges, as well as for the universities and industry. Those training the new graduate students think they have the best way. But is it the only way? Part of the confidence in today's system stems from the reluctance of university professors to admit that their route of Fourth Industrial Affiliates Symposium of the Departments of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at StanfordUniversity.
education is not the best for everyone. It is as though one were telling the professors their training was bad and inferior. The university professors' principal tasks are the training of graduate students and the direction of highpowered, highly specialized research, not teaching college chemistry. Another reason for a lack of programs for chemistry teachers is the second class stature teaching is given, at least in the universities. One does not gain tenure through excellence in teaching; it is "publish or perish." Perhaps, as James Lowe, of the University of the South points out, heing a good teacher and a good scientist are in conflict (2). Doing good research does not necessarily make one a good teacher. Both roles demand a nearly total commitment. The miter can see no justification for a college teacher's training necessarily being the same as a university professor's and will now give reasons for a modification of a t least a part of the graduate education of prospective college teachers. In addition to giving teaching some of the respectability it deserves, a special program might help improve the research productivity of college teachers. B. R. Siebring studied thirty-five universities and found that nearly half of the professors teaching general chemistry have discontinued any publishable research (3). A PhD candidate who participated in a doctoral program which successfully integrated teaching and research would he more likely to continue his research while teaching. How can future college chemistry teachers be most successfullv trained? The most recent report of the Committee on chemistry in the Two-Year Colleges of the Division of Chemical Education of the ACS suggested the following for teacher preparation ( 4 ) 1. Each university rrlenre department nrccpt respmsibilrty fur the preparation of two-)ear as well as four-year collcgr tcarhen of
its discipline. 2. There be given the broadest possible encouragement for the development of innovative experimental programs leading to better trained teachers (hence better teaching for the two-year eolleges and others) and for the careful study and evaluation of the results of these programs. 3. The minimum academic preparation for a two-year college science teacher he equivalent in level t o a master's degree in the discipline to qualify in the subject he teaches and that further academic training is highly desirable and should stress breadth as well as depth and should include, but need not particularly stress, science research. Precisely what changes are needed to design a PhD program for college teachers? The writer believes that the prerequisites for entering such a program should he basically the same as those for the traditional graduate program, with a desire on the part of the candidate to enter into college teaching. The increased specialization evident in today's programs is inherently detrimental to the training of future teacher-scholars (3). What must he strived for is a very sound hackground in all areas of chemistry and in the relationship of chemistry to the other sciences and to socieVolume 50, Number 1, January 7973
/
57
ty. It is thus recommended that the distribution of courses taken he widened while maintaining the high standards found a t the leading universities. For example, classes in advanced inorganic and physical chemistry should he required of all candidates since nearly all, a t some time, will teach general chemistry. The increasing trend to introduce organic chemistry early in the curriculum makes courses in advanced and especially physical organic chemistry invaluable. The student should then devote time to preparation in one of the traditional subdivisions of chemistry relevant to his thesis topic. A solid background in other areas of science, such as biology, physics, and the earth sciences, would enable the future teacher to better understand the position of chemistry in the spectrum of science. There is much talk of the value of the social sciences in the background of the scientist. It is likely that such knowledge could help a teacher in working with nonscience students. This all implies somewhat more course work than is usually required. What about the thesis? As Judson Ihrig noted, the thesis must have substantial scientific content and make for a demee worth having ( 5 ) .It is most important that the candidate's work lead-him to dweloo interests in fields in which he can continue working i n h i s teaching position. This implies a project suitable to limited funds and equipment, and of such scope that it can be advanced by an individual with the help of undergraduates. Any teacher of chemistry must have research experience-doing chemistry is doing research. Also, directing limited research projects for undergraduates would he impossible without the knowledge as to how to carry out a research project. The last, and perhaps most important part of this program would he some form of real involvement in the teaching process during the period of graduate study. Unfortunately, this is also probably the most difficult to implement. A possible scenario is the following: a joint program is initiated with local colleges enabling the candi-
58 / Journal of Chemical Education
date to teach in the environment he will enter. This part of the program accomplishes two things. It would lighten the heavy teaching load on the college instructors and give them time for research or further training while concurrently putting a highly motivated, dedicated, and inexpensive teacher into the college system. This program would require great cooperation between the university and the college, but both sides seem to have everything to gain. This internship should be closely supervised and objectively evaluated. As the report on two-year colleges goes on to state (4) Appropriate preparation for the two-year college teacher should include supervised teaching experience, supervised by a science department (preferably in the two-year college) that provides knowledge of the kind of students and the nature of the institutions in which he might teach, as well as a knowledge of materials and methods of teaching his discipline. This program may seem fairly extensive, but the writer believes that i t could be completed by a dedicated candidate in little more time than the traditional PhD. Not all of the problems associated with this program have been solved. Such a program would, however, give the prospective college teacher a better background in chemistry, valuable research experience and, most important, a chance to teach in his future environment. It should be the obligation of a t least a few of the major universities to give such a program a chance for success. Literature Cited !li Siiehfer. W.P.,J.CHEM. EDUC., 18, 14!1971). (2) Lawe. J . N . , J CHEMEDUC..dS,649!19681. (31 Siebring, B.R.. J.CHEM. EDUC.. 16, 163(1969). (4)
J.CHEM.EDUC..18,2iL9il).
( 5 ) lhirp, J. L.. J. CHEM. EDUC.. 48.69!19711.
Dane R. Jones Stanford University Stanford. California 94305
