George Eastland, Jr. Saginow Valley College University Center, Michigan 48710
Experimental Chemistry A course for high school teachers
The chemistry department of Saginaw Valley College offers, in conjunction with the education department, a Master of Arts in Teaching degree, with an emphasis in chemistry. In starting such a program, several new courses were developed. This paper describes one of those courses; a course which we feel is unique. The course is entitled "Experimental Chemistry." Our M.A.T. program is specifically designed with the high school teacher in mind. To be eligible for graduation, the candidate for the degree must have had one full year of high school teaching. The philosophy behind our courses is that they should, for the most part, contribute directly to the teacher's ability to teach chemistry at the high school level. This philosophy played a major role in the design of "Experimental Chemistry." A survey of the literature available to us showed that courses (Ref. (1-2)) on experimental chemistry in a M.A.T. program had a different thrust than what we wanted ours to take. These courses all seemed to be designed to bring the high school teacher hack to college and expose him to sophisticated instrumental techniques, such as nmr, ir, esr, etc. While we have no particular objections to such a course, and in fact give the students the opportunity to do that elsewhere in the program, our course took another slant. It is our feeling that, very often, one of the weaknesses in a high school chemistry program is in the laboratory. This could be due to a lack of facilities at the school or a certain trepidation on the part of the teacher to get his students and himself into the lab. Often, it is easier just to hold class. We hoped that our course would give the teacher a background in planning and running a laboratory on a high school level, thus making him more at ease with such a situation. It was around this idea that the course was developed. Our course met once a week, on Saturday morning, for three hours each meeting. On our first meeting the instructor passed out an outline of the course and made the only assignment of written work for the semester. The students were told to begin thinking about a paper which they would write and discuss about a month after the first meeting. They were to address themselves to answering a question about the lahoratory program in chemistry. The question was: What did they expect their students to get out of a chemistry laboratory program? Is the lahoratory an opportunity for the students to see principles in action and to really learn chemistry, or is it a place to learn skills germane to chemistry, such as filtering, boiling water in a test tube, etc. It is hardly an original question'(3) hut is, we think, a very important one. We feel that one of the real weaknesses in a laboratory presentation is an uncertainty on the part of the instructor as to what he expects the students to learn. We took an assiduously neutral position on the matter so as not to have the students write reports to please us, and we encouraged the students to begin thinking about the problem right away. During the following two weeks we discussed two general, hut related topics: liability and lahoratory safety. There are quite a number of references available, and we cite just a few (4-8). The students were asked to return to the next class knowing what protection, if any, they had with respect to legal liahility. It was pointed out to them 392 / Journal of ChemicalEducation
that such protection is available, as a rider on many home owner's policies, if they needed it. As it turned out, because all of the students were members of the Michigan Education Association, they were all protected by a policy carried by the M.E.A. But it was edifying for each of them to specifically ascertain the level of protection. Discussion ensued about legal problems regarding liability and we used Ref. (9) as a focal point for the discussion. This gave the teachers a good feel for what, in general, constituted liability. The next week we discussed the problems associated with laboratory safety. We considered first some basic aspects of first aid. While emphasizing the fact that we were not doctors, we did present certain minimum things which could be done for common laboratory accidents involving burns, cuts, acid and caustic splashes, and electrical shock. Introduction to, and discussion of, the various types of safety equipment, including fire extinguishers, eye washes, safety showers, etc., was given. We asked how many of our teachers required safety glasses in the lab (all did). We pointed out that there was a plethora of information, posters, etc. available from chemical companies. We discussed some hazardous chemicals or chemical mixtures (e.g., potassium chlorate-glycerine) which their students might he exposed to. We advised a couple of the teachers on handline some sus~icious-lookinechemicals which they had inherited when they took t h z r positions. This lead to a discussion (10-121 on the disposal of chemicals, particularly with respect to the poisihle methods other than simply dumping them down a drain. This seemed to he a particularly interesting topic to the teachers, as both they and their students are quite pollution conscious. The sessions were quite informal and were punctuated by spontaneous exchanges of anecdotes relating to situations which each of us had encountered. The following week was a presentation of various lecture demonstrations by the instructor. The first part of the session was given to discussion and demonstration of various general methods and techniques, such as TOPS, a light box, etc. We showed sources of demonstrations (13) and decided that, since a number of the teachers were interested in the hook on demonstrations hy Alyea and Dutton (141, we would order copies for all who wished to buy them through the college hookstore. The second half of the day's work was spent by the professor going through various demonstrations. These were chosen to illustrate various techniques and methods. Discussion was given to the preparation of the demonstration materials and the background for the demonstration, as well as the demonstration itself. It was emphasized that we are chemists, not magicians, and so our demonstrations should be done to bring home some point of chemistry. The demonstration may be very quiet or very spectacular, it may be done very openly or in a very mysterious fashion, but it should provide, either immediately or ultimately, a learning experience in chemistry for the students. It can provide a great show, hut it must he more than just a show. The following two weeks each of the students gave three demonstrations to the class. Although they were encouraged to innovate their own demonstrations, they were not
required to do so. The rules for the demonstrations were that they were to do those which used materials and equipment that they, as high school teachers, would normally have on hand, and that the demonstration be given within the context of a brief lesson. Again, the purpose here was to get the teachers to smoothly integrate the lesson and the demonstration. The following week's session was devoted to a discussion of the reports assigned at the start of the semester. All of the students agreed that it was important for their students to learn laboratory skills and almost all held that there was more to be gained from the laboratory experience than just the acquisition of those skills. Several of the students stressed the idea that the laboratory was a place for involvement in chemistry on the part of the student and instructor. Others pointed out that the lab was the nlace where a student could see chemistw "come to life." kll agreed that the chemistry lab was, at least potentially, a vital Dart of the chemistry student's education. Thefollowing week began the final, and most important, aspect of the course. Each student was assigned a topic, such as electrochemistry, gas laws, stoichiometry, etc., and was told that he had to present a lab, suitable for high school both in duration (about one hour) and in facilities and material required. We drew lots for the date upon which the lab was to be presented, with two experiments to be done each week. On the chosen day, the student would give any preparative comments necessary, provide the written experiment to the rest of the class, with the rest of the class then carrying out the experiment. The class then commented on the experiment, the instructions, and/or the preparative material. To facilitate the actual operation of the experiments, the students were told to call the S.V.C. chemistry department during the week prior to their experiment and tell us of any solutions, equipment, etc., which needed to be ready for Saturday's meeting. We thus had all materials ready for the experiment. The department's duplicator was also available for their use. The topics for the first series of experiments were assigned because we felt that the students might be a little at a loss if left on their own to immediately choose their own experiment. In addition, as practicing high school teachers, when a particular general topic for study comes up, they should have an experiment ready. They are not entirely free to choose the topic for each experiment they do. They were, however, free to choose the experiment it-
self and further, were encouraged to innovate an appropriate experiment if they wished to do so. For this first round, however, most chose already proven experiments, taken from high school lab books. The following (and final) four weeks were the same except that the students were permitted to choose their own topic. Again, we encouraged them to devise their own experiment, noting that experiments on topical subjects (pollution, energy, etc.) might be particularly valuable. We further pointed out that this might be a good time to try out an experiment which they had been wanting to do but were uncertain about for one reason or another. During this session, most either presented an experiment completely of their own invention, a modification of a previously published experiment, or' an experiment which they had been wanting to try. Several were of a topical nature. Some of the experiments went smoothly, some had rough spots in them, either in the procedure or the compilation of the results, and at least one was rather a flop-all to the edification of all the people in the class. One of the last meetings was highlighted by a videotape of Hubert Alyea, of Princeton University. Dr. Alyea was in the area a year ago and presented about an hourlong lecture a t Delta Junior College to area high school and college teachers. The lecture was video-taped by Delta with financial support from Dow Chemical Company, and was available from Dow. Most of the students in the class had not seen the lecture and everyone seemed to enjoy the tape. Dr. Alyea's energy and love for chemistry and teaching come through clearly. The course seemed to be very well received by the students. We made a concerted effort to provide an experience which would be of direct help to the high school teacher in what is often a weak area and the consensus of opinion seemed to be that it was successful. Literature Cited Howery.D. G., J. C H E M EDUC..47,84 119701. Powers.1. W.. and Scarnohorn, R.G., J . CHEM. EDUC..47. 185(19701. Young,J . A,, J. CHEM.EOUC., 45.798119681. Continuing Series in J. CHEM. EOUC.. "Safety in the Charnieal Laboratory Young,J. R..J.CHEM.EDUC.. 41. A829(19101. Young,J . R.. J. CHEM. EDUC.. 18. A349& 780(19111. Bensinger, R . E . J. CHEM. EDUC.,U.l80I1911I. Young,J . R.. J. C H E M EDUC., 49, 55(19721. Livingsfon, R L . . J. C H E M EDUC. 48,1~(1911)andreferencotherein. Pearsall, S.G..and Wilshusen, W.. J . CHEM.EDUC.. 45.A599, (1968). Teske. J. W.. J . C H E M EDUC.. 47, A291, (l9101. Mento, M.A., T h S c i r n c e Teacher. 30. (Jan. 19111. Continuin8 Series in J. C H E M EOUC. Alyea, H. N.. and Duttnn. F. B.. 'Tested Demonstrations in Cherni~Lry." of Chernic~lEducalion, Easton, Pa.. 1965.
Volume 52, Number 6, June 1975 / 393
