Fact, Theory, and Academic Discipline
Two months ago on this page the desirability of balancing students' perceptions of science and technology was discussed; the burden of achieving this balance falls on teachers. Today, the theme of achieving a balance persists, hut in another sector of chemistry teaching-viz., the relationship between facts and theory as it is perceived by students, and what teachers can do to illuminate that relationship. Many teachers of chemistry find themselves in a difficult professional and moral position hecause of the interactions between the evolving nature of chemistry as a discipline, their personal interest in this science, and their obligations as teachers. As has been observed earlier on this page, chemistry is dvnnmir. -~~ -~ ,~~~~~ ~~.undermine ~. ~,constant chance in content. Thus, the collection of facts-descriptive chemktry-and our understanding of the principles-theory-are continually evolving; undoubtedly facts are accumulating more rapidly than theories are developing, an understandable relationship a t this point in time. Powerful as theory can he, we must recognize that it is the "unexplained" facts which ultimately refine theoretical principles. Indeed, our current perception of the relationship between these twin engines that cooperate to drive all science suggests that it will always he so. Theories are useful things; they are hased on fact, and properly used they can lead to the discovery of new facts. Inone sense, the reality of chemistry is the facts to which theory must he subservient. This is not to suggest that one is more important than the other, hut rather that we need to recognize their relationship when we teach students who would he chemists as well as those who are "non-scientists." Vigorous pursuit of hoth aspects of chemistry hy their respective devotees leads continuously to new developments that must he incorporated into the suhject matter presented to our stndents. Teachers engaged in transferring the essence of this melange of "content" and "process" to young minds are faced with a task similar to that of attempting to change automobile models while the assembly line is in operation. The unthinking use of theory, whether by teachers or writers, in an attempt to provide a "meaningful" structure for chemistry, can lead to a distorted view in an immature mind. Thus, the question of whether or not the bond angle in a water molecule can he predicted by (semihheories is often not as important to a student's development as is the observation that water is a hent molecule. Theories can he used to organize and present facts, a laudahle correlation of these two aspects of chemistry; in modified form, they serve as the basis for correlating a wide spectrum of descriptive material. Unfortunately, however, theories are often presented-or perhaps perceived-so as to give the impression that everything is known rather than that they are starting points for further (unspecified) developments. A common teaching scenario today involves estah-
more important for a student to recognize how we got where we are than it is for him to know where we are. A knowledge of the former gives him an insight into future theoretical developments. An alternative approach to the teaching of chemistry, i.e., development of the evolution of theory from facts, has the advantage of showing students how chemists think. This approach is not necessarily historical, as some have suggested. Too often students do not know the difference hetween a prediction arising from a theory and the fact which was initially used to assist in the development of the theory. For example, how many students can understand the important difference between the following two statements?
tinn. it can ei;e a distorted imnression of the mental orocesses used by chemists and of the development of theory. It is often
must he consistent with the professional welfare of their stuJJL dents.
"Methane is a tetrshedrlal molecule hecause the carbon atom is an .sp%yhrid." "Because methane is a tetrahedral molerule the hybridization of the carhon atom is sp:'." There is an enormous difference implied by these statements. One might logically fnllow from a discussion of bonding, whereas the other might arise in the development of bonding theory from facts. Which one is correct? What does "correct" mean in this context? If students do not appreciate the differencks between these points of view, they have a flawed perception of the nature of chemistry; whether the students are science majors or non-science majors, they have heen deprived of important elements of our knowledge. Important facts are not recognized for what they are, and the normal thought processes of chemists are masked. The would-be chemist suffers on hoth counts while the non-scientist is deprived primarily because he does not get an insight into the way scientists think about problems. Teachers, like all people, have biases, hut they cannot afford the common luxury of succumbing to them. Although some teachers may have professional preferences for the development of either descriptive chemistry or the theoretical aspects of chemistry, and indeed, there may well be definable pedagogical and/or logistic reasons for developing the subject along one or the other line of argument, it is imperative that students get a balanced view of what we are about as chemists. Ideally, this must be accomplished without suppressing the development of the student's capacity to formulate his own ideas or giving a false impression of how chemistry is done. Teachers can unknowingly proselytize students and distort their development. Indeed, there is a delicate balance between stressing the subjects and approaches that are of interest to the instructor and emphasizing those which will assist students in understanding the nature and development of chemistry. It is a t this point that teachers need the discipline of introspection to understand the nature of chemistry, to
Volume 57, Number 2,February 1980 / 91
