From Justus von Liebig to Charles W. Eliot: The Establishment of

Chemistry for Everyone

From Justus von Liebig to Charles W. Eliot: The Establishment of Laboratory Work in U.S. High Schools and Colleges W Keith Sheppard* Program in Science Education, Columbia University Teachers College, New York, NY 10027; *[email protected] Gail Horowitz Department of Chemistry, Yeshiva University, New York, NY 10033

For more than a century, laboratory work has been commonplace in U.S. high schools and colleges. Today, it is so ubiquitous that its pedagogical value is rarely questioned (1, 2). In the early to mid-19th century, however, individual laboratory work was rare, while lecture and recitation dominated (3–6). At the time, laboratory work was generally viewed as inferior, appropriate only for trade schools (7, 8). When conducted, it was relegated to the basements of buildings and fringes of campuses (3, 9, 10). Instructors rash enough to incorporate laboratory work into their instruction were expected to buy their own materials (9, 11, 12). From such an inauspicious start, it is remarkable how the status of laboratory work improved so that by the end of the 19th century, it was required in many schools and colleges. How and when did this dramatic change occur? How did the laboratory method of teaching science become so prevalent? What brought about its general acceptance and widespread dissemination? While Justus von Liebig (1803–1873) was not the inventor of the laboratory method of teaching chemistry (3, 5, 13–15), he was unquestionably influential in its popularization. Despite the recognition of Liebig’s impact (10, 15–20), little has been written about how his ideas and methods were incorporated into U.S. science courses. The story of how the laboratory method developed, spread, and gained acceptance is fascinating and involves a well-known reformer, Charles W. Eliot. Eliot (1834–1926) also has had much written about him (21–25), but surprisingly, descriptions of the development of laboratory work rarely cite Eliot and Liebig together. A notable exception is a short article by Pickering (26) that mentions a Liebig–Eliot connection only in passing.

Figure 1. Justus von Liebig. Courtesy Liebig Museum, Giessen, Germany.

566

Journal of Chemical Education

•

The present article describes why Liebig exerted the influence that he did, and how Eliot, trained in Liebig’s methods and holding several key educational positions, brought about widespread adoption of individual laboratory work (3, 4, 13, 27). Rosen (21, 22, 28) has shown how Eliot, as president of Harvard, influenced high school science teaching through his revisions of Harvard’s admission requirements. However, the impact of Eliot’s other notable educational positions has not been explored. For example, Eliot’s roles as chair of the Committee of Ten and as the instigator of College Entrance Examination Board were both crucial in the adoption and dissemination of the laboratory method. Liebig and the Laboratory Method From 1824 to 1852, Liebig (Figure 1) directed a chemistry laboratory at the University of Giessen in Germany, to which hundreds of students flocked (17, 19). Liebig’s success in attracting students and developing a worldwide reputation resulted from his research achievements, his development of a concrete and fruitful training method, and the dissemination of his methodology by loyal and devoted students (17). One of Liebig’s most significant research achievements was his invention of the kaliapparat, which substantially improved combustion analysis (Figure 2). This apparatus transformed the newly emerging field of organic chemistry. In Liebig’s laboratory alone, it enabled students to complete four hundred combustion analyses a year (17, 29). The kaliapparat’s importance is evidenced by its depiction in the American Chemical Society logo (Figure 3). Liebig developed an international reputation because he was effective at publicizing his ideas and accomplishments. He edited and controlled the internationally renowned journals Annalen der Pharmacie and Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie (the latter replaced the former in 1840). Much of the research at Liebig’s laboratory was published in these journals, which became known as the journals of the University of Giessen. In a single year, Liebig’s students published 32 research papers in Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie (16, 17). Further international attention came in 1841, with the publication of Liebig’s text Organic Chemistry and Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology, which was immediately translated into English. While European students were already studying in Liebig’s laboratory, this publication spurred U.S. students to travel to Giessen (8, 16). In addition to his research accomplishments, Liebig was also renowned as an educator, in whose laboratory chemists received a rigorous practical education (Figure 4; ref 17 ). Ac-

Vol. 83 No. 4 April 2006

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Figure 2. Liebig’s kaliapparat. Courtesy Liebig Museum, Giessen, Germany.

counts of the training indicate that students began by learning fundamental techniques, sharpening a knife, cutting and drilling cork, blowing and bending glass, under the watchful eye of Carl Ettling (1806–1856), one of Liebig’s assistants. Students were then given a series of flasks marked with the letters of the alphabet and were required to systematically analyze the contents of each flask aided by a copy of the text Introduction to Analysis. As they worked through the flasks, Ettling monitored their progress. Students typically spent a summer solving the riddles of the 24 bottles. This course in qualitative analysis evolved so that the series, originally referred to as “the alphabet,” became known as “the hundred bottles” (15). On completion of the “bottles,” students were considered capable of working on individual research problems. Their research was supervised directly by Liebig, who met with students daily to offer constructive criticism (17). Liebig’s fame might have been sufficient to spur the spread and adoption of his laboratory method of teaching, but the loyalty and devotion of his students ensured its dissemination. When Liebig alumni obtained academic positions, they attempted to recreate his system of instruction at their new institutions (17). Several notable Americans in this category were Eben Horsford (1818–1893), Oliver Wolcott Gibbs (1822–1908), Frederic Genth (1820–1893), and John A. Porter (1822–1866) (16). The Laboratory Method Imported to the United States Eben Horsford was most influential in transplanting Liebig’s methodology to the United States (10). Horsford worked in Liebig’s laboratory from 1844 to 1846 (14, 31). He returned to the United States to accept the Rumsford Professorship of Science at Harvard and within a year of his re-

Figure 3. American Chemical Society logo. The symbol between the “A” and “C” represents Liebig’s kaliapparat. Its incorporation was suggested by J. L. Smith, an American chemist who studied with Liebig (30).

turn, Horsford had persuaded Abbot Lawrence (1792–1855), a successful local manufacturer, to donate fifty-thousand dollars to establish a scientific school at Harvard (16). In 1847, the Lawrence Scientific School opened. Horsford modeled the school along Liebig’s lines and initiated the first laboratory course in chemistry with 12 students (3, 16, 31).1 Two years later, Charles W. Eliot began his undergraduate studies at Harvard, just as Josiah P. Cooke (1827–1894) was hired as instructor of chemistry and mineralogy. Cooke, himself, had just graduated from Harvard (28) and, with no laboratory classes available to him, had taught himself practical chemistry in a makeshift laboratory set up in his father’s shed (32). Upon being hired, Cooke traveled to Europe to purchase equipment and chemicals. He returned to set up a private laboratory at Harvard emulating Horsford’s laboratory at the Lawrence Scientific School (28). Cooke’s laboratory, located in the corner of a basement, was small and cramped and had neither gas nor running water (25, 32). In these primitive conditions, Eliot, a college freshman, began volunteering in Cooke’s laboratory and witnessed first hand the use of the laboratory method. Years later, Eliot noted (25a): I therefore have a vivid recollection of the humbleness of the beginnings of both the Chemical and Mineralogical departments; of the elementary quality of the instruction given; and of the great disadvantages under which all the instruction was given, without any possibility of offering laboratory practice to the students, except as a favor which could be granted only to very few.

After graduating, Eliot remained at Harvard and continued to study chemistry and to work in Cooke’s laboratory. He was soon appointed tutor in mathematics and a few years later was promoted to assistant professor of mathematics and chemistry. Eliot began to co-teach a chemistry class with Cooke, in which he oversaw the laboratory, while Cooke handled the recitation. In 1861, Eliot took over Horsford’s chemistry classes at the Lawrence Scientific School (25, 32, 33). Eliot’s belief in and commitment to teaching chemistry by the laboratory method was firmly established (34): I was in charge of the Chemical Laboratory of the Lawrence Scientific School… my teaching was given wholly by the laboratory method without formal lectures or recitations from books.

Figure 4. Justus von Liebig’s Laboratory around 1840. Courtesy Liebig Museum, Giessen, Germany.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

The following year, Eliot became acting dean of the Lawrence Scientific School. In this capacity, he sought to raise standards by increasing entrance requirements and by pro-


•


567


posing that all students complete two years of introductory courses before specializing in subjects such as chemistry (21, 25, 32). Shortly afterwards, Eliot’s five-year assistant professorship ended and despite Horsford having just vacated the Rumsford Professorship, Eliot was not offered the position. The more experienced Oliver Wolcott Gibbs was chosen instead. Eliot was disappointed and, although he was offered a chemistry professorship at the Lawrence Scientific School, he decided instead to go abroad and to study European methods of higher education (32). After two years studying the organization and methods of instruction of universities in France, Germany, and Italy, Eliot was enticed to accept the position of professor of chemistry and metallurgy at the newly founded Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Eliot was specifically chosen, along with Lawrence School alumnus Francis H. Storer (1832–1914) to supervise the establishment of the chemical laboratories (35). Storer, also a disciple of the laboratory method, had worked with Eliot in Cooke’s laboratory (23). At MIT, Eliot and Storer began teaching chemistry students using the laboratory method. Realizing that no adequate textbooks existed, they coauthored the first English-language chemistry laboratory manual, A Manual of Inorganic Chemistry Arranged to Facilitate the Experimental Demonstration of the Facts and Principles of the Science. Its objective was, “to facilitate the teaching of chemistry by the experimental and inductive method” (23a). According to James (32), this text revolutionized chemistry teaching in the United States by promoting laboratory-based instruction. Eliot and Storer wrote a second text, entitled Compendious Manual of Qualitative Chemical Analysis. Both texts went through numerous editions (23, 32). Eliot worked at MIT for just two years, because in 1869 he was elected president of Harvard University. In selecting Eliot, the Harvard Corporation made a significant break from its traditions and those of other universities. Not only was Eliot not a classicist nor a clergyman, but he was a scientist schooled in the new laboratory method. Eliot would serve as Harvard’s president for forty years (Figure 5). The directions that Eliot took and the changes that he implemented while serving as Harvard’s president revolutionized the teaching of science in the United States (21, 22). Eliot in Charge at Harvard Almost immediately, Eliot broadened Harvard’s admissions policy. First, physics was added as an admissions option; then a mandatory science entrance requirement was implemented (22). In 1886, a new policy regarding laboratory work was initiated. Completion of specific high school chemistry or physics experiments would entitle entering students to receive admission credit and advanced standing (21). Eliot had Cooke prepare a list of approved chemistry experiments. Cooke’s list of 83 experiments became known as The Pamphlet (28). These experiments were nontrivial and emphasized quantitative analysis and theoretical chemistry. In physics, Eliot had Edwin Hall prepare a comparable list of 40 experiments (3). Given Harvard’s influence, the “Harvard lists,” as the required experiments became known, had a dramatic effect on high school science (36). High schools created new labo568


•

Figure 5. Charles W. Eliot. Courtesy of the Perry-Castañeda Library, The University of Texas at Austin.

ratory courses or revamped existing ones to feature individual laboratory work. Initially, only feeder schools of Harvard undertook these changes, but the trend spread rapidly, so that by 1900, individual laboratory work in U.S. high schools was commonplace (27). The U.S. Education System in the 19th Century Eliot’s impact on high school science was not limited to Harvard’s sphere of influence, but extended to the national level. Nineteenth century U.S. education was significantly different from the present. When Liebig established his teaching laboratory in 1824, elementary schools and colleges were well established in the United States, but no public high schools existed. While a few secondary school academies were set up during the 19th century, they enrolled less than 1% of the eligible population (37). After 1875, when a legal case established that local taxes could be used to pay for schools, public high schools formed rapidly. As high schools were established, their curricula became aligned and coordinated with those of elementary schools. However, a lack of curricular continuity developed between high schools and colleges (38). Students entering college were not required to complete a specific number of credits, nor did they even have to graduate high school. Acceptance to college was largely controlled by individual colleges’ entrance examinations (39). As the number of students enrolling in high schools increased, high schools became the primary source of students entering college and the lack of standardization of entrance requirements became problematic (40). Widespread dissatisfaction with the high school–college interface led to the formation of the first national education committee. The committee, known as the Committee of Ten (CoT), was set up at Eliot’s instigation and would significantly impact how high school science was taught in the United States (38). The Committee of Ten In 1892, the National Educational Association (NEA) established the Committee of Ten, chaired by Eliot, and consisting of the U.S. commissioner of education, five university presidents, and three high school principals (41). The


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


committee was charged with restructuring high school study into a more coherent preparation for college. They organized nine subcommittees, representing the major academic areas, including three science subcommittees: physical science (physics, chemistry, and astronomy), natural history (botany, zoology, and physiology) and earth sciences (physical geography, geology, and meteorology) (41). As chair, Eliot was highly influential in both the designation of the subcommittee subjects and in choosing the subcommittee members. He made sure that Ira Remsen,2 who had established laboratorycentered chemistry education at Johns Hopkins (7, 16), was chair of the physical science subcommittee (41). All the subcommittees were assigned questions concerning methodology, time allocation, methods of assessment, content, and whether their subjects should be taught differently for college-bound students (41). The physical science subcommittee made 22 recommendations to the full Committee of Ten. The influence of Liebig’s and Eliot’s ideas is obvious from the recommendations about laboratory work: • That in secondary schools physics and chemistry be taught by a combination of laboratory work, textbook, and thorough didactic instruction carried on conjointly, and that at least one-half of the time devoted to these subjects be given to laboratory work. • That the laboratory work in physics should be largely of a quantitative nature. • That careful notebook records of the laboratory work in both physics and chemistry should be kept by the student at the time of the experiment. • That the laboratory work should have the personal supervision of the teacher at the laboratory desk. • That the laboratory record should form part of the test for admission to college, and that the examination for admission should be both experimental and either oral or written. • That a committee to consist of Mr. Fay and Mr. Krall have charge of making a list of 50 experiments in physics, and 100 experiments in chemistry, to be subject to the approval of the Conference (41a).

Subcommittee members and science teachers, Fay and Krall duly compiled a list of 57 physics experiments and 100 chemistry experiments. Eliot’s influence is again evident on examining the sources from which these experiment lists were compiled (see the Supplemental MaterialW). These were wellknown laboratory manuals including Remsen’s A Laboratory Manual, Eliot & Storer’s An Elementary Manual of Chemistry, and Cooke’s Laboratory Practice (41). The CoT subcommittees submitted their reports to the full committee, which authorized Eliot to compile the final report. Eliot made sure that the physical science subcommittee recommendations regarding laboratory work were published verbatim in the final report (37). Implementation of the CoT Recommendations In the late 19th century, mental discipline and training were seen as the purpose of education. Certain subjects, notably Latin, Greek, and mathematics, were believed to strengthen the faculties of memory, reasoning, and imaginawww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

tion (38). Eliot argued for the place of science in the curriculum because the science laboratory student “exercises his powers of observation and judgment [and] acquires the precious habit of observing appearances, transformations and the processes of nature” (42). Eliot’s argument about the educational benefits of the laboratory method was pivotal in ensuring the acceptance of science and the science laboratory in the CoT’s recommendations. In 1895, the Committee on College Entrance Requirements (CCER) was established to implement the CoT recommendations (43). The chemistry section of the CCER, chaired by Alexander Smith (1865–1922), reiterated the importance of laboratory work, “without laboratory work, school chemistry is wholly valueless…” (43a). They specified that laboratory work should be performed individually in well-equipped laboratories, with each student having his/ her own set of apparatus. If these conditions were met, then “all colleges must give admission credit for the subject” (43a). It is somewhat remarkable that the CoT recommendations regarding individual laboratory work were implemented in high schools, given the expense involved. Fortuitously, the trend towards individual laboratory work coincided with the rapid expansion in the building of high schools. As new schools were constructed, laboratories were included (44). The funding for this came directly from state taxes. In New York, for example, it was stipulated that in order for a high school to receive state funding, it had to provide “laboratory facilities for individual experimentation” (44a). New York further designated that in order for teachers to be state certified, they had to complete two years of science in which “the laboratory method of instruction is prescribed” (44b). Other states emulated New York, so that laboratories and laboratory work became a fundamental part of high schools (36, 45, 46). The College Entrance Examination Board Having been instrumental in ensuring that the sciences and science laboratories were incorporated into high schools and colleges, Eliot also contributed significantly towards raising the status of science, further ensuring its prevalence and prominence in educational institutions. Eliot launched a movement to standardize the college entrance examinations (32, 38). In 1900, Nicholas Butler (1862–1947) of Columbia University established the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB), described as “Eliot’s idea and Butler’s triumph” (37a). The first examinations (known today as achievement tests or SAT II tests) were held in 1901. The subjects tested were those prescribed by the CCER. The influence of the CEEB exams on the status of the tested subjects was significant. Subjects that were tested became acknowledged as college entrance subjects. The initial science examinations were in chemistry, as well as physics. As a result, while only a few colleges had accepted chemistry as an entrance requirement in the late 1890s, by the 1920s virtually all colleges accepted it (47). The CEEB published syllabi, delineating what high schools should teach to prepare students for the “College Boards”. The science syllabi demonstrate the importance given to individual laboratory work. All initial CEEB science exams required a laboratory component to be performed in


•


569


the schools. In chemistry, students had to submit laboratory notebooks to be graded by an examiner. The first chemistry chief examiner was Ira Remsen (1846–1927). The practice of requiring laboratory books continued until 1909, when it was replaced with certification by science teachers. To this day, the New York State Chemistry Regents curriculum requires students to complete at least 1200 minutes of laboratory work and teachers must certify that this work has been completed before students can take Regents examination (48). Summary In 1844, Horsford studied chemistry in Liebig’s laboratory in Germany. On returning, he set up a laboratory at the Lawrence Scientific School, which would strongly influence Charles W. Eliot. When Eliot became president of Harvard, he modified Harvard’s admission policies to allow science and science laboratory courses to be admission options. Further, as chair of the Committee of Ten and as instigator of the College Entrance Examination Board, Eliot made sure that laboratory work became integral in high school curricula. Eliot brought about changes that would leave a lasting impression upon science education in the United States. A pattern of teaching science as a combination of lecture and laboratory developed and became formalized and ingrained. This method, primarily unchanged, has remained in use to the present. Thus, the laboratory method promoted by Liebig, imported by Horsford, and championed by Eliot became an established teaching method in science education in the United States (4, 21, 22). WSupplemental

Material

Timeline of the pertinent events, list of the chemistry experiments from the CoT, and the chemistry experiment list from The Pamphlet are available in this issue of JCE Online.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31.

32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

Notes

38.

1. Horsford’s letter to the Harvard Corporation in 1854, complaining about difficulties he was having at the Lawrence Scientific School, makes it clear that Horsford’s overarching goal was to recreate Liebig’s laboratory (31a). 2. Remsen had traveled to Germany in 1867 to study with Liebig, but by this time Liebig was no longer personally working with students in his laboratory (49).

39.

1. Fife, W. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 119–120. 2. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 201– 218. 3. Rosen, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1956, 33, 609. 4. Rosen, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1958, 35, 209–213. 5. Osborn, G. Sch. Sci. Mat. 1960, 60, 621–625. 6. Hale, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 729–744. 7. Festa, R. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 893–894. 8. Browne, C. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 696–728. 9. Whitman, F. P. Science 1898, 8, 201–206. 10. Williams, R. P. Science 1901, 14, 100–104. 11. Van Klooster, H. S. Chymia 1949, 2, 1–15.


41.

42. 43.

Literature Cited

570

40.

•

44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49.

Clarke, F. W. Science 1897, 5, 117–129. Rosen, S. Am. J. Phys. 1953, 21, 194–204. Fay, P. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1931, 8, 1533–1562. Good, H. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1936, 13, 557–562. Van Klooster, H. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1956, 33, 493–497. Morrell, J. B. Ambix 1972, 19, 1–47. Lockemann, G. O.; Ralph, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1953, 30, 202– 204. Holmes, F. L. Osiris 1989, 5, 121–164. Szabadvary, F. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 794. Rosen, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 1005–1006. Rosen, S. The Science Teacher 2000, 67, 32–33. Davis, T. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 868–879. (a) p 876. Krug, E. A. Hist. Educ. Quarterly 1961, 1, 4–21. Newell, L. C. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1924, 16, 636–637. (a) p 636. Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 699–700. Rosen, S. Sch. Sci. Mat. 1963, 63, 313–323. Rosen, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 525. Ihde, A. J. The Development of Modern Chemistry; Harper and Row: New York, 1964. McBride, J. M. The “Kaliapparat”, Liebig’s Five-Bulb Apparatus. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/histor y99/ 4RadicalsTypes/Analysis/Kali/kaliapparat.htm (accessed Dec 2005). Rossiter, M. The Emergence of Agricultural Science: Justus Liebig and the Americans, 1840–1880; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1975. (a) Appendix 4, pp 197–204. James, H. Charles W. Eliot: President of Harvard University 1869–1909; Houghton Mifflin Company: New York, 1930. Hawkins, H. Between Harvard and America: The Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1972. Eliot, C. W. Science 1925, 61, 609–610. Lowell, A. Science 1890, 16(411), 340–341. Moyer, A. E. Phys. Teach. 1976, 14, 96–103. Krug, E. A. The Shaping of the American High School, 1880– 1920; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, 1964; Vol. 1. (a) p 32. Kliebard, H. M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958; Routledge: New York, 1986. Broome, E. C. A Historical and Critical Discussion of College Admissions Requirements; Columbia University: New York, 1902. Ravitch, D. Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms; Simon & Schuster Inc.: New York, 2001. National Education Association. Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1893. (a) p 118. Eliot, C. W. Century Illustrated Magazine 1884, 28, 209. National Education Association. Report of the Committee on College Entrance Requirements, In Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting; National Education Association: Chicago, 1899; p 794. Goodwin, E. J. Educ. Rev. 1908, 36, 491–500. (a) p 496. (b) p 497. Smith, A.; Hall, E. The Teaching of Chemistry and Physics in the Secondary School; Logmans, Green: New York, 1902. Powers, S. R. School and Society 1926, 24, 498–503. Kilander, H. F. School Science and Mathematics 1929, 29, 174. New York State Education Department. Chemistry Core Curriculum. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/chemist.pdf (accessed Dec 2005). Getman, F. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1939, 16, 353–360.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

From Justus von Liebig to Charles W. Eliot: The Establishment of

Recommend Documents