provoccntive opinion Let's Keep Chemistry Out of Kindergarten Henry A. Bent North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695 Chemistry's hard, even for chemists. Many times have I watched, in a roomful of chemists, lecture demonstrations not go exactly-or even approximately-as expected, and no one in the room was certain why. Ah! Nature's telling us something new! That's interesting! But, of course, that's an intolerable situation in the school room, where the teacher and students, principal and parents expect the teacher to be on top of the subject. Press grade school or middle school or junior high school teachers to teach chemistry and they do four things, all of them unfortunate. They lecture, stick to the text, avoid experiments, and discourage questions. You ask questions, my youngsters informed me, either because you weren't listening or you're stupid. Not surprisingly, the longer students are exposed to physical science in the schools, the less they like it. Chemistry's not easy to teach. Even in high schools and colleges lecture demonstrations in beginning courses are relatively rarely seen. Even professional chemistry teachers aren't entirely comfortable with chemistry. We spend our class time drilling students on the mole concept, stoichiometry, electron configurations, the gas laws, the laws of thermodynamics. But that's not chemistry, any more than spelling conventions and rules of grammar are English literature. Chemistry in the classroom is observing what chemists do, seeing what chemists see, hearing what chemists say, writing what chemists write, and imagining what chemists imagine. For that to happen, there has t o he a chemist in the classroom. Trvine t o eet nonchemists who aren't comfortable with cheiistiy to teach chemistry is counter-productive. It's like entrustine child-rearine to varents who are not comfortable with ehiliren. It's a fr&raiing situation-for the children, parents, and society.
The first rule of curriculum design is: Above all, do no harm. Don't put your teachers into awkward situations. Don't ask nonchemists to teach chemistry. Let them teach what they can teach: reading, writing, and arithmetic. That's the hard part. Once studentscan do those things, its relatively easy for chemists to teach studeuts chemistry. The problem in teaching chemisty to beginners is not in what they don't know about chemistry. Everyone knowsalot of practical chemistry. Every thing about us is a chemical, or a mixture of chemicals. The problem in teaching chemistry lies in what students don't know about reading, writing, and arithmetic. They can't read with understanding, can't write simple declarative sentences, and can't do arithmetic with confidence. In short, they can't think. How do we learn to do that? We learn to think by thinking about things we understand thoroughly-or, a t least, that the teacher understands thoroughly. Unwittingly, if with the best of intentions, we do much mischief to the thinking habit by introducing into the curriculum content that no one in the classroom understands thoroughly. Let's keep chemistry-formal chemistry-out of the curriculum that nonchemists are expected to teach. Keep chemistry in the early grades on the informal side. Let real, professional chemists and real, enthusiastic chemistry teachers visit the classrooms every once in a while to show pupils what chemists do, what chemists see, what chemists say, and what chemists imagine. The kids love it. Changes in colors of indicators, formation of precipitates, tests for ions, colored flames, pyrotechnic displays are delightful. Youngsters who have i t in their hones to enjoy science and, perhaps, to become chemists, will see soon enough whether or not they want to take courses in chemistry.
Volume 62
Number 12 December 1985
1071
