Postscript t o the Conference Is it possible for 400 chemical educators to agree unanimouslv on anv tonic? The sumrising answer was "ves." a t the ~ o u r t h~ i e n k a l ' c o n f e r e n c L o nchemical ducat ion. The narticinants left Madison convinced that they had attended bne of'the best conferences of their professional careers. "Please analvze what you did to make it work and pass on the information for the next conference," wrote one participant. This is a suggestion which the Division of Chemical Education will undoubtedly adopt. Why was the conference so successful? A large measure of credit must go to General Chairman Bassam Shakhashiri and the conference committees who watched over the thousands of details from the welcome a t the airport to the handshake when we left. What warm hospitality we felt from all of the Universitv of Wisconsin staff and ~articularlyfrom the chemistrv deparrment! We were grateful ior the nmvenient, wntraliwd living, -. eating, -~and meetinr facilities. We appreciated the boom microphones which made large discussion grouns nossihle. The audiovisual gadgets were handled impeccabl$. Above all, we enjoyed basking in the free and relaxed informality called the "Shiri atmosphere," after our Lehanese-horn chairman. And the food! We will not soon forget the su~erlativeroast beef a t the opening dinner, the extravaganza ofentrees, salads and desserts a t every meal, the steak fry on the shores of Lake Mendota and the B-P-P (beer, pretzels and pop) each night when we really got to know one another. The single-session format shaped a common background for these Was everything perfect? Well, no. If we are honest, we know that we do not harbor loving- thoughts toward the university trash collectors who woke us a t 5 a.m. every morning. The seats in the auditorium were obviously antique remnants from the Spanish inquisition. Perhaps these minor imperfections were necessary lest no one dare to follow the 1976 act. It takes courage to try something new and it takes careful wisdom to make it work. Jerry Bell, the program chairman, and the conference staff ohviouslv used both attributes in planning an innovative and successful format in keeping with the theme Particinant-Paced Proerammiog. which implies a departure from tradition. Most narticinants considered the catalvtic addresses to he the high points of the week. We were dazzled by the science fiction demonstration that showed us that Kent Wilson is fifty years ahead of the rest of us in use of multi-media and the computer. We were surprised that W. J. Popham, a nonchemist, could speak so well to our teaching needs. We were reminded bv F. S. Rowland that chemical research can shake industry and government. W. L. Jorgensen showed us how the computer is revolutionizing synthetic organic chemistry even as all non-organic chemists winced a t his complicated chemistry which most of us had forgotten or never knew. Gil Haight reminded us that chemical education will not stay unchanged even if we do. The experimental discussion format was well received and should he tried again, perhaps with a few changes. The authors must he carefully coached not to repeat the long summaries which are available in advance. Most of them could not helieve ~~~~~~
~
~
~
~
that rhe iirsr moderator. Stan K~rschner,was rrnlly gmng hold them t o n floe minute talk l,ut he u.ns inflexible, which appealed to my own authoritarian feelings on program scheduling. Many participants suggested that we should explore slightly longer presentations, and shorter discussion periods in which the audience is cautioned against transforming a question into a mini-convocation address. Perhaps a special interest discussion in an adjoining room should follow every paper. The exhibits were an excellent change of pace on the two afternoons they were set up. There was an opportunity for specialized discussion on a one-to-one basis, with eavesdroppers gleaning overflow benefits. The zeal of the exhibitors was contagious. The only problems were a lack of time and the popularity of some exhibits which kept them crowded. This was particularly true of the computers which were available for a "hands-on" trial. The conference evaluation sheets made clear. however. that there were manv nersons who did not go near the compkers because they consider that the cost factor to he true on all levels is nrohihitive. This limitation anneared .. from high school to the university. It is obvious, despite hundreds of ~ublishedarticles, that tutorial or simulation use of the computer still has not been put into a form which appears to he exportable nor has the cost per student hour been demonstrated convincingly to be reasonable. The historv svm~osiumwas the most controversial feature For many, the presentations were a high point of the of the conference. For many more, the papers were a complete waste of time. I do not share either viewpoint. Certainly Henry Bent's paper sparkled and many of us will wait impatiently for the opportunity to see it in print so we can catch up with the ideas which flowed past us. Other kind words could he said about other papers, hut we have reached a time when most chemists do not want to hear more about the controversy as to the sienificance of the historv of science or how it should be tau&. Let us hear some typical, first-rate lectures which come from the classroom of a good chemistry historian. Let us hear illustrations of the proper use of history in our standard chemistry curriculum. We do not need to he convinced. We need to he-shown how. What more could one ask of a chemistry conference? We were pushed and pulled out of our complacency. We were shown new ways of teaching which we might even learn to like. Chemistry was presented a s a live, exciting, and innovative field. We had a chance to talk about chemical education with neonle who also wanted to talk about chemical education. w h e n is the next biennial conference and where will it he held? Albert E. Finholt St. Olaf College Northfield, Minnesota 55057
Based, in part, on written comments and opinions of participants who responded to a 23-item questionnaire dealing with the Conference
Participant List
20 / Journal of Chemical Education
center Dave Maclnnes, Uuilfmd Colleee Marl ha Mackin. Mayfair Colle~e YincenL Magnun,". llniversily 01Minnesofa-Dulufh Mnr."an Marshall. Central Virginia c.,mmunity Collepe Fmderick Mayor. Alfred State Collppe IIrv8d MrCullvch. U. sf Wisconsin-Madison
Lillian Quer,ia"r. Chiraall. IL Julian Rachalle. Cornoil Il. Richard Ramctte. Carletm Ccllle~e B D I ~ namsay, eastern ~ i ~~ h ~ i ~ ~ i~ ~~ ~ ~ Muriel Ranadon, Union C d i 8 e Tom Reccrd. U n i v e m i t y d Wisconsin-Madison Fled Redmure. Freeport, 111inoir Darwin Rrdwinz. Rockbrd. lllincrir Theodore Reitz. Culumhia Rarin Cdlega Gordm Renuvitch. Florida A&M U. Gale Khodes, Maryville Colle~e R w d d Rich, lnternationnl Christian U.,Tokyc~, .lawn Rnhert Ridway. Rollins Colleje C l i n t m Hila. Iowa Wadevan Cullepe William R~lchey.Care Western Rererve II. Thomas RuherL?. IJ. of Arkanrar Bmck Knhertaon, U. of C a l ~ n r y Rulnnd R,,s~,*. I 1 "f Wisconsin-La Cnlsse F. S. Rwdand, U. of Cnl~l f T e c h n l h m ~ ~ ~ u~ . ~~ r~ ~ ~i ~ h~ i~ i t ~ . Carlos Schwantes, Atlantic Union Collep Truman Schwartr. Macalester College ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~~ .i h~ ir ~~ d i ~~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ i ~ Rvddhadev Son. Louisiana Stale II. Hnrram Shakhaahiri, U. s f W i r c ~ r i n - M a d i s w David Shsw, Madiron Aree Technical Collem. W1 Erner, Silversmith, Morgan State U. Noel Simmons, Hutialn,NY Viclllr Sin~leton.U. or Wiscunrin-Madirlln Emil Sl
