report of the polymer core courxe committee
Polymer Core Course Committees Generation and Evolution Core Course Committee
The ACS Committee on Professional Training in its 1979-80 publication "Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: Criteria and Evaluation Procedures" notes: "In view of the current importance of inorganic chemistry, biochemistry and polymer chemistry, advanced courses in these areas are especially recommended and students should be strongly encouraged to take one or more of them. Fnrthermore, the basic a s ~ e c tof s these three im~ortantareas should he ineluded at some place in the core m&erial." I t is with res ~ e cto t the directive given in the final sentence auoted above thnt n serirs of rtmmitrrt.~w.13 dewloped under the Joint Polvtner F:dur.ittiot~l'~mt~tirree. 'I'hr . b h t I'chrncr Education committee initially considered the implications of the above-cited quotation in 1979. I t was our belief that topics related to polymer chemistry (principles, illustrations, and application) should be included in all of the core courses within the training of an undergraduate chemistry major a t -
-
The Core Course Committee consists of: Charles E. Carraher.. Jr... Wrioht - State Universitv... Davtan. . . OH 45435 Raymond B. Seymour, University of Southern Mississippi, Southern Station.MS 39406-0076 Eli Pearce, Polytechnic institution of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Guy Donaruma, Polytechnic institution of New York, Brooklyn. NY ,, , l " ,
Norman E. Mlller, Vniversity of South Dakota, Vwmillion, SD 57069
Charies Gebeieln, Youngstown State University, Youngstawn, 44503 L. H. Speriimg, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015 Ferdinand Rodriguez, Corneii University, ithaca, NY 14853 Gerald Kirshenbaum, Ceianese Plastics Company, Summit.
OH
NJ
07901
Raphael M. Ottenbrite,Virginia Community University, Richmond VA 23284
Rger Hester, University of Southern Mississippi. Southern Station, MS 39406-0076
Bernard 11201
J.
Bulkin, Poiflechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY
I
an appropriate level. While certain core polymer related topics should he almost universallv covered in certain courses (such as '.pdymcrs heiny lnrge rnolerult.s preacnt thrmtghuut liit." in wner;il chernistrs~there ,hvuld exid ample ilezibilit\, to petkit teachers of the same course to exploit their own strengths and desires. In 1980, six committees (hereafter referred to as Core Course Committees in subject areas) were formed, with each committee having a chair and an aide (or co-chairs). Members were chosen to give a good mix of large school-small school participants with emphasis placed on members who actually teach the particular core course. This latter point is important since the reports must be realistic. Both those with polymer training and research interests in polymers and those without formal training or research interests in polymers were placed on committees. Committees were given broad instructions and encouraged to develop them in a manner most consistent with their core area. Thus the reports vary in form. The initial committees were inorganic (Norman Miller, chair; John Fortman, aide), organic (Charles Gebelein, chair; Eli Pearce, William (Bill) Feld and James (Jim) Kane, aides), physical (Les Sperling, chair; David Karl, Leo Mandelkern, and Howard Coker, aides), general (Charles Carraher, chair; J. Arthur Campbell, co-chair), biochemistry (Raphael Ottenhrite, chair, Guy Donaruma, aide) and analytical chemistry (Roger Hester and Bernard Bulkin, co-chairs, Angelo Volpe, aide). Later a committee on Chemical Engineering (Ferdinand Rodriguez, chair, Les Sperling, aide) and one dealing with what polymeric samples (suitable for classroom use) were available and where these could be obtained (co-chaired by Raymond Seymour and Gerald Kirshenbaum) were formed. A supercommittee called simply the Core Course Committee was composed of the chairs of the various core areas plus Guy Donaruma and Eli Pearce and chaired by Charles Carraher. Kc). w r d s fur dr\.t.lopiogthe reports utrr trust, rntlity. aud Iltxihility with a k w phrase reminding committee memhers to avoid protectingone's own "turf." it was realized that, in
Volume 60 Number 11 November 1983
971
order for the USA to continue as a world leader in the field of
and applications, not the exclusion of other basic core concepts and areas. Again, this latter point was a powerful euideline. u - - - ~ - ~ The reports were to be written to teachers, supplying readily availahle tonics. exercises. illustrations. and vrincides for inclusion in their courses. Eight objectives were prescribed: 1) Determine general topics to be included in each core course. 2) Determine depth of coverage of each topic. 3) List short, specific polymer illustrations which can be used in teaching key concepts to students. 4) Find timely illustrationsof polymer science and include enough specific information so that theexamples can be used directly hv -,tearhers. - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 5) Determine a general estimate as to the amount of time that should be spent on polymer-related topics in each course. 6) Evaluate available texts. 7 ) Assess overall state of affairs in each course. 8) Develop examples of questions and answers-multiple guess, short answers, essays.
T h e following material discusses how certain of the above objectives were accomplished. Determination of topics. This was done through many avenues including a) surveys of books to see what is already covered; b) surveys of teachers of the course; c) surveys of committee members and teachers of introductory polymer courses. Surveys of industrial chemists (both polymer and non-polymer) and of industrial management (by Charles Gebelein, Ken Edwards, Shalaby Shalaby, Rudy Deanin, and Charles Carraher) were also employed. Determination of depth. The committees were charged to he as specific as possible, yet to retain flexibility. Time1.y illustrations. This section may include a mixture of fully developed (hut not verbose) and referenced illustrations. Laboratory experiences might be considered throughout items 1-4. Estimate of class time to be devoted to polymer topics. Committees were asked to be realistic and to present a r e a sonahle range of minimum to maximum time. Class time should include both lecture and laboratory.
972
Journal of Chemical Education
Evaluation of auailable texts. This was done after, before (with reflection), or during when items 1-5 were undertaken. The final report might include a listing of currentlv available an overall appraisal of each text. Textbook evaluation is important because it is difficult to teach a t least some of the recommended topics if they are not included in current texts. The most popular texts in each core area were included in the evaluations. Also older texts, prior to 1979, were biased against. Examples of questions and answers. *he final objective asks for sample questions and answers illustrating possible avenues for quizzing students, indicating recommended depth and breadth of learning, and showing how questions can be developed which introduce students to polymers. in a semiThese reports will appear in THIS JOUHNAL regular fashion. Appropriate "feedback" is welcomed, encouraged. These reports were developed as part of the overall educational activities of the Joint Polymer Education Committee sponsored primarily by the American Chemical Society's Division of Polymer Chemistry and Division of Organic Coatings and Plastics Chemistry (Polymeric Materials) and supported in part by the Industrial Associates Fund of the Polymer Division in affiliation with other polymer divisions and societies including SPE, SPI, and ASC and with similar societies located in Great Britain, France, Australia, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Additional activities of general interest include the Standardized Polymer Examination Test, Theodore Ashford. Universitv of Southern Florida. and David n Tirrell, Carnegie- ello on; ~ i k t a t i o nProgram, ~ d Mathias, University of Southern Mississippi, and Warren Ford, Oklahoma State University; Summer Scholarship Program, David Garner. General Motors Research Labs. Warren. Michigan. Stan lsrael, Lowell University, and ~ n ~ kVolpe, l o East ear: olina University; Polymer Education Newsletter, Harry Gibson, Xerox Webster Research Center, Rochester, and Rita Blumstein, Lowell University; History of Polymers, Ray Seymour, University of Southern Mississippi, and M a n Stahl, Phillips Petroleum, Bartlesville, OK; Industrial Relations, Charles Gebelein and Shalaby Shalaby, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ.
