For Students Who Need More: Accommodation with Integrity
During the past six months we have heard a t least a dozen master chemistrv teachers describe. in one wav or another. what they percei& to be a diminishing effectiveness in thei; abilitv .to "eet the material across,. esneciallv . . in eeneral chemistry courses. Common to all the discussions are comments such as: "The students' questions-even after far more painstaking development of topics and more extensive drill than was needed in the past-are so trivial and repetitive, and reflect such little appreciation and comprehension that I despair of getting large numbers of students in my classes to learn anything really substantive." "It is nearly impossible to teach chemistry without being able to includeaspects that involve simple math." "My exams are much simpler than those I gave a 1 0 years ago, yet the grade averages are disturbingly lower." "The students don't actually do the homework any more; they just want to see how it is done." "Althoueh students seem to studv at least asdiligentlgas in the past, many appear to have much greater difficult\! il;similatinr" and ~ t ~ r r r l i ~ tthe i n evolume of material their predecessors of five, ten or twenty years ago could handle." Comments such as these are not new. Similar "cries of failure" have been voiced by many college chemistry instructors in the past. The striking thing about these comments is that they were made by persons who have distinguished records in teaching chemistry to large numbers of &dents, and who have earned the respect and esteem of thousands of these students. Clearly, if these teachers are experiencing difficulty, and assuming they have not become too inflexible, there is reason to examine the situation. Although a thorough examination could occupy volumes and take months, perhaps we can take a first step by looking a t the course content and goals, a t the content and goals visa-vis those of other colleee courses. and a t the backmound and expectations of students. The important questions concerning what is taught and learned in chemistry courses-and more specifically in the general chemistry course-have to do with the range, depth and currency of the material included, with the scientific and intellectual integrity of the presentations and requisites, and with the knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired by the students. Although complete agreement on the ranee, depth and currency of the che&ry taught is neither desirable nor achievable, much can and n c d i to be said on this topic. At present, the pertinent issues here are: How much cumplexity is too much ur tuo little in a cuurse with a spec~fiedstudent mix? How much \,olume of material is too much or too litrle? What priorities should be assigned to current chemistry andlor science-society topics? If textbook adoptions are any indicator, the movement of the decade is away from the more rigorous, theory-laden, quantitative content, and toward a more general presentation and application of principles. This movement is accompanied by less complexity, less expectation in terms of volume and perspective gained, and more repetitive, rote-reinforcing activity. It is difficult to assess and compare the scientific and intellectual integrity of present day college chemistry courses. What evidence can be accumulated from the texts used, from grade inflation studies, and from published accounts of changes in course structure and goals during the present decade strongly suggest that there has been no maior improvement inthis area and that, if anything, some teachers have felt compelled to yield a little in integrity in the hope of
-
-
-
-
making the material more palatable for students. If course or content integrity . . is broadened to include effectiveness in getting studrnrs to learn lwith integrity) the or wen sonw ofthe material in thecourie, the resultsareat h ~ s t only hopeful. ,\nalyses ulthe knou,lt:dge, skills and attitudes acquired by student.? enrolled in chem~rtrycourses during the 19Xs may be more detuilrd nnd factually supported than in the past, but most are based on largely subiective and incomplete information. Still, it is reas&ble to conclude that in none of these areas are present day students, who began college with n,rmnl l~ack~rorrnds, noticenhly superiu; tu etudrnts subjected to cumparal)lr rxprriences in the decades of thr 195Osand 60s. Some irnorov(.ment is claimed in eettine students to understand and use certain complex concepts, and some new facts and theories are generally known, but in areas such as math and reading skills, in using imagination, and in attitudes toward work and learning, many observers see a backward drift. Viewed on balance, it appears that although course content has moved markedly toward less complexity and volume, and toward greater and greater accommodation to student needs and abilities, neither the intellectual integrity of the courses nor the achievement or attitudes of students has improved noticeably or deteriorated badly during the 1970s. ~ & e on d this admittedly superficial analysis of the course content and goals of chemistry instruction, there appears to be no major new factor or factors in the chemistry component itself to clause the most recent drterioratiun in performance of studrnts or the diminishing effcrtireness of experienced teachers. But chrmistrv has alaa\,s 11et:ndifficult for manv. Therefore, if in the minor revolution in college course content and goals that had occurred durine the '70s. the chemistrv courses have become relatively more difficult than courses in other disciplines a t the same level, students might get the impression that too much is expected in chemistry and not make the necessary effort. That the differences in standards and achievement levels between disciplines may be significant, a t least in some cases, is illustrated by the recent experiences of a chemistry staff member a t a large state university who, after being involved in the general chemistry program for seven years, decided to enter medical school. Before doing so, he enrolled in all the lower division courses required of the pre~nedicslstudents except the chemistr!. courses. He reports that, wiihout eact!priun, thesecourses require far less from the students than do chemistry courses. To the extent that these experiences are representntiw, chemistry teachers may hwe a t least a partial explanation for some of their observations, but they also might have to do a little soul searching. That a major cause of the difficulties reported by chemistry teachers lies in the background and expectations of entering colleee - students would annear .. hard to refute in lizht " of all that has been written on this subject in recent months. However, simnlv identifvine the cause and either weaklv resizninz to theaituation br reacting arrogantly to i t are-not ckely to generate an acceotable solution to the oroblem. An anoroach .. with greater has two vital features. The first is recognition that most students entering college today fall into one of two classes: those who can do, and those who must be taught to do. Dealing with the latter group requires an entirely different set of strategies than dealing with the former. The second is that only by maintaining the basic integrity of our courses can the best interests of students, faculty, the college or university, and society itself be served. WTL
-
-
Volume 54. Number 6, June 1977 1 331
