Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
From the Beginning: The Journal of Chemical Education and Secondary School Chemistry Joseph J. Lagowski* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of TexasAustin, Austin, Texas 78712-0165, United States ABSTRACT: The people, events, and issues that were involved in the beginning and the evolution of the Journal of Chemical Education and the Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED) are traced and discussed. The constitution of the American Chemical Society incorporates the roots of chemical education as an area of interest to the Society. Both DivCHED and the Journal have developed from these roots. The precollege initiative was an early concept in the development of the Journal. It gained significant traction during the CHEM Study project, which was part of the response to the Sputnik event. KEYWORDS: General Public, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Chemical Education Research, History/Philosophy, Administrative Issues
■
PRELUDE From the beginning, the subjects we know as “chemistry” and “society” have coexisted in a symbiotic relationship.1 The art of chemistry was capable of providing society with things that were perceived to be important: pigments, materials (glass, metals, etc.), energy, and medicinals. And society supported these practitioners of the chemical arts. To improve processes and materials, chemical artisans engaged in what today we might call research. Thus, the now familiar cycle of research and development was created out of this symbiotic relationship. Society wanted results, not a description of the ways that these results were attained. Indeed, the “formulas” and recipes that yielded the desired results were often hidden by their creators to maintain advantages over others working on the same problems. A form of education also arose in these timesapprenticeships. These often involved young people who were virtually indentured by their families to “the masters”, a process that assured that the youths involved were not a burden to their families. Perhaps one of the more interesting and illustrative early examples of this process was the production of glass. In the 18th century, a typical recipe for clear glass included “washed sand and pearl ashes” along with other substances that affected the nature of the glass, for example, flint glass or ordinary glass. Pearl ash was, in modern terms, potash (potassium carbonate) extracted from wood ashes. Originally, molten glass was produced by heating this mixture, the heat being generated by wood fires, which also were a source of the pearl ash. This was a very efficient manufacturing cycle. Unfortunately, society’s desire for glass window glass and glass objectswas so large that the once dense forests began to disappear. Indeed, in several instances, the hereditary political rulers (kings, etc.) decreed that a different source of heat must be used to produce glass, which led to the use of coal. As popular interest in glass increased, the glass recipes improved through specification of the purity of the components. As a result, the art of chemical analysis improved. Processes were developed to use soda to replace potash; soda ash is an old name for sodium carbonate. Ultimately, potash was replaced by the much more accessible soda ash, which could be produced from © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
brine (a source of NaCl) and limestone (CaCO3), two inexpensive, naturally occurring substances. The detailed chemistry for the production of soda ash was refined by the Solvay brothers, Belgian chemists who commercialized the process through the Solvay Company, which ultimately was absorbed by the precursor of what is now known as Allied Chemical Company. The point of this superficial description of the production of a single substance (Na2CO3) illustrates the characteristics of the symbiotic relationship of chemistry with society. Both symbiontschemists and societybenefitted from that interaction over time. Chemists were able to refine their used-to-bean-art into a “science”, and society as a whole obtained the perceived benefits of having a broad spectrum of glasses available for use in a variety of objects, both esthetic and functional. All “moved forward”. Both symbionts learned the distinction and benefits of research and development. Also, of course, the importance of educationthe process of passing useful information from one generation to the nextwas critical. The process described here started in the late 1700s and culminated in the early 1900s. It was slow, but it was effective. That chemistry was becoming an important part of at least one segment of society is illustrated by the fact that the subject entered the formal system of education. Universities acquired professors of chemistry, many of whom had been trained as physicians, or what we call “pharmacists” today. Such appointments implied an interest in the applications of chemical knowledge (i.e., development). In the early days when chemistry had become a science, there were very few chemists in the United States, and they were widely scattered geographically. John Winthrop, the Younger, who was Governor of the Connecticut Colony of New England, was a successful chemist. In order to improve his work with tar, pitch, brewing, salt, and potash, he joined the Royal Society of England to obtain information and to facilitate cooperation with English scientists. A number of societies and associations were formed to encourage Published: November 7, 2013 17
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
interest in the “arts and sciences”, “natural science”, and “natural history”, which included early chemical subjects. The first organization in the world devoted entirely to chemistry was the Chemical Society of Philadelphia, founded in 1792, some 42 years before the Chemical Society of London appeared. There were no other important national associations until the Manufacturing Chemists Association was organized in 1872 in New York City. And, finally, chemists began to form professional societies as a focus for their chemically related interests. The American Chemical Society (ACS) was founded in New York City on 6 April 1876. The constitution of ACS includes Article II, which states:2 The objects of this society shall be the encouragement and advancement of chemistry in all its branches and by the meetings, reports, papers, discussions and publications to private scientific interests and inquiry. The first meeting of the Society was held at the New York College of Pharmacy in 1876. A librarian and museum curator were elected, even though there were no books or other items for the electees to supervise. This action recognized that education is one of the functions of the Society and its members. The very early commitment of the Society to education is also strongly implied by papers presented at the seventh National Meeting that was held in conjunction with the World’s Congress of Chemists in Chicago in 1893.3 The papers presented at the symposium devoted to Didactic Chemistry (that is, “teaching or lecturing chemistry”) were entitled: • “The Relationship of Teaching to Research in Chemistry” (W. E. Stone, Purdue University) • “How Chemistry Is Best Taught” (C. Mabery, Case School of Applied Science) • “The Education of Industrial Chemists” (G. Lunge, Zurich Switzerland) • “The Teaching of Industrial Chemistry in Colleges” (H. Pemberton) • “Laboratory Work Must Be Subordinate and Auxiliary to the Presentation of Facts, Laws, and Theories by the Teacher” (R. W. Jones, University of Mississippi) • “Quantitative Work in Beginning Chemistry” (W. A. Noyes, Rose Polytechnic Institute) These are examples that illustrate the reality of the early commitment of the ACS and its members to issues involving the elements of chemical education. An ACS Committee on Chemical Education reported to a meeting of the ACS Councilors in June of 1908, that: The President of the ACS be authorized to appoint a Committee on Chemical Education, which shall have charge of the sessions of a Section on Chemical Education and the securing of papers to be read in such sessions, and the committee shall also collect information regarding existing standards and methods of institutions in the various grades of Chemical Education, and shall from time to time make such reports and recommendations to the Council as may be deemed necessary to promote the interests of the Society in this branch of activities. Thus were watered the original seeds of chemical education implied in the ACS Constitution. It appears that chemical education had achieved a standing equivalent to the “bench chemistries”analytical, biochemistry, inorganic, and physical chemistry. A “Section of Chemical Education” was established and a committee charged with overseeing the presentation of
papers at the ACS meetings. The 39th Meeting of the ACS (1909) was held jointly with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Baltimore. At that meeting, the section of Chemical Education’s first session began with the Chairman’s (H. P. Talbot) paper entitled “Science Teaching as a Career”. The presentations at this first meeting were described in “Reports of Meetings”4 as being received with “interest and enthusiasm”, indicating a successful future for this kind of chemistry. Unfortunately, the record is silent over the next 12 years on the new “Section of Chemical Education”, and the reasons for this are difficult to establish. We could speculate that the leadership of the Section of Chemical Education might have “relaxed”, not realizing that the meeting program of the new section needed to be actively pursued to produce a program for each subsequent meeting. Or, perhaps, it could have been the beginning of the “wars between teaching and research” fueled by the beginning of the “publish or perish” point of view that is so pervasive today. There is no way to establish the source of the silence. The facts are clear; there is no record of meetings of the Section of Chemical Education for the next ten years. In 1919, the third Chairman of the Section of Chemical Education asked Edgar F. Smith, President of the ACS, why the society was doing so little to interest teachers and requested that a realistic program be provided for chemistry teachers. Smith would have an important role to play in the development of the Division of Chemical Education (DivCHED) and the Journal of Chemical Education (J. Chem. Educ., or JCE).
■
INTRODUCTION
The Journal of Chemical Education and the Division of Chemical Education had their modern genesis in a singular event that occurred in 1921. Using a molecular biology metaphor, JCE and DivCHED are essentially maternal twins in the sense that both share the same DNAthe detailed map which describes the fundamental and distinctive characteristics of a developing species. The “father” of these twins was Neil E. Gordon (Figure 1). The development of these twins was shaped by an interesting cast of characters, some of whom were not particularly interested in seeing the twins mature and become successful. This is their story and ours.
Figure 1. Neil Gordon, first editor of the Journal of Chemical Education. 18
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
NEIL ELBRIDGE GORDON (1886−1949) AND THE FOUNDING OF THIS JOURNAL Gordon obtained his B.S. degree in mathematics from Syracuse University in 1911; his Ph.D. was awarded by Johns Hopkins University in 1917, after which he became Assistant Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at Goucher College. There is nothing particularly remarkable about Gordon’s early years; he was a typical chemistry-trained faculty member. However, Gordon underwent a seminal experience when he attended his first ACS meeting in the spring of 1921 at Rochester, New York. That meeting was a joint meeting of the Divisions of Inorganic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry. The paper in question, entitled “Research for the Undergraduate”, was presented by Edward Ellery from Union College in Schenectady, New York. Union College, which opened its doors in 1795, has historically offered a curriculum that integrates liberal arts with the sciences and engineering. In Ellery’s time, the general education curriculum included two specially designed courses: the FirstYear Preceptorial, and the Sophomore Research Seminar. The latter focused on learning research methods, evidence-based learning, and the technique of sound written argumentation. Undergraduate chemical research at Union College had its origin in the first third of the 20th century when chemistry professor Charles Hurd began involving students in his colloid chemistry investigations. As an aside, Hurd’s sustained investigation of the kinetics of sol-to-gel transformation of SiO2(H2O)x, silicic acid,5 involved 128 senior students and yielded 34 publications, mostly in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (J. Am. Chem. Soc.) and the Journal of Physical Chemistry (J. Phys. Chem.), making Union College one of the most productive liberal arts institutions in America.6
persistent and convinced the ACS President, Edgar F. Smith, otherwise using letters supporting the idea of creating a Chemical Education Section. This designation is used by ACS to denote probationary status. However, the status was later changed to a Division. Smith had, on several occasions, expressed an interest in the area of chemical education as well as in the history of chemistry. Originally, it was suggested to Smith that the section on teaching be combined with the section on history that he was interested in establishing. Smith feared that such a combination would adversely affect the section of the history of chemistry. However, Smith indicated that he could serve as chairman for each section independently. With that move, Smith, the ACS president, assured that the (apparently) moribund Section of Chemical Education would gain a new life. Smith appointed Gordon as Secretary of the Chemical Education Section and requested that Gordon prepare a program for the 1921 fall meeting of the ACS that would be held in New York City. The New York City meeting was described as “well attended”, and the new Division’s meeting was deemed a success. The second meeting of the Division of Chemical Education was held in Pittsburgh. At this meeting, two papers were read that solidified the need for a Division of Chemical Education. Harry N. Holmes (chair of the meeting in Rochester that Gordon attended) presented a paper giving the topics that he covered in his college course. A high school teacher from Washington, DC, L. W. Mattern, presented a paper in which he gave the content of his high school course in chemistry. Both of these speakers covered practically the same ground. The discussion of the two papers was described as heated, and it resulted in the formation of a national committee on the curriculum of high school and college chemistry. The committee consisted of three members from each of the groups that had a legitimate interest in the nature of these curricula; namely, high school teachers, college teachers, and industrial chemists. The committee prepared a high school outline covering specific topics, which was submitted for criticism by groups of high school teachers in all parts of the country. With these criticisms, the committee then proposed a concrete high school curriculum. Immediately, this paper led to the creation of a web of high school chemistry teachers in various parts of the country.
Apprenticeship Model of Teaching Chemistry and Publication Outlets
Ellery’s Rochester paper was presumably a description of the results of this educational process. Unfortunately, the details of Ellery’s paper are not available to verify this speculation; at the time, Ellery was serving in a number of administrative rolesas Dean of the faculty at Union College, and National Secretary of Sigma Xiand was not working with students in the laboratory. Union College had recently introduced a B.S. degree in chemistry that involved an undergraduate research problem. Be that as it may, Ellery’s paper sparked lively discussion and stimulated Gordon’s interest so much that he immediately began formulating a plan to have “more papers of this type” available at ACS meetings; that is, papers describing undergraduate research. The leadership of the Physical Chemistry Division at the time indicated that papers of this type would not be appropriate for the Physical Chemistry Division (even though many of Hurd’s papers with his undergraduate students ultimately were published in J. Phys. Chem. as well as in J. Am. Chem. Soc.). If these papers were to be given, they should appear in a section of their own. Gordon followed up the possibility of forming a section dedicated to teachers; by teachers, he meant anyone who taught chemistry at any level. Not surprisingly, ACS leaders at that time (particularly C. L. Parsons who was the ACS Secretary) were not encouraging; they did not believe that a “section of teachers would live”, to use Gordon’s words on the matter.7 This was in spite of the fact that the ACS had established a Section of Chemical Education that appeared to be dormant. Perhaps ACS leadership took the dormancy of the Section of Chemical Education as an indicator of the “interest of the membership”. Fortunately, Gordon (known for his “bulldog tenacity”) was
Classroom-Based Model of Teaching Chemistry and Publication Outlets
The final report of that committee was presented at the 1923 ACS National Meeting in Milwaukee and became the vehicle through which the Journal was created. In his discussion of the report, Gordon touched on the difficulties he encountered in publishing the various papers associated with the report. The editors of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry and the Journal of the American Chemical Society declined publication because “the papers were not suited for these journals”. The editor of Science had offered to publish a limited number of papers “provided such publications increased the circulation” of that journal. A similar promise was made by the editor of School Science and Mathematics. This quandary is still with us today because of the breadth of the ways to teach chemistry. If the chosen method is an apprenticeship in a research environment, as in the Union College model, then there is a natural outlet for the results, namely, through the appropriate research publication. However, those teaching approaches that involve formal “classrooms” would certainly be viewed by the editors of chemical research journals as inappropriate. 19
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
To Gordon, another way to handle such problems, which he foresaw as ongoing if the Division were to become viable, as he believed it could, was for the Division to create an independent journal that could deal with all processes in chemical education at all levels. At the Milwaukee meeting, the Division members attending directed Gordon to investigate the feasibility of having an independent journal. A letter circulated to the 750 persons who had declared themselves, through the office of the ACS Secretary (Parsons), “interested in the Division of Chemical Education” resulted in a 56% vote in favor of establishing an independent journal.
■
INFLUENCES SHAPING THE EARLY YEARS OF THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION Gordon, as the first Secretary of the Division of Chemical Education, was in the position to dictate, at least at the beginning, the nature of the papers that would be presented at the Division’s ACS meeting programs. His natural predilection was to promote the “undergraduate as researcher” theme that got him so excited when he listened to the Ellery paper. Undergraduate education and research within that context is a recurring theme in early Division affairs. Where do undergraduates come from? From high schools, of course. Clearly, Gordon needed a vehicle to disseminate the information contained within these papers. The ACS was loath to start up a new journal, especially one associated with a subject that was assumed by the ACS leadership to be of little interest to the ACS membership. After wandering through the halls of the ACS hierarchy and becoming enmeshed by bureaucratic “do-loops” that led nowhere, Gordon decided he would take on the task of starting a new journal. He produced a dummy issue with associated advertising rates and finally, after spending two days in New York City visiting with officials at potential advertisers such as Arthur H. Thomas Company and the Chemical Catalog Company, Gordon signed up $2,000 worth of advertising in what would become the Journal of Chemical Education. Advertising income was only a part of the resources necessary to publish a journal. Gordon needed an editor. He approached Edgar F. Smith, the president of the Society and also a leading chemical educator at the time, who was trying to establish a section and a journal on the history of chemistry. Gordon thought that perhaps Smith could be induced to help him start this journal, but Smith did not have the time to do both journals, and besides, he worried that the effort he could put into the Journal of Chemical Education might undercut his history effort, which had always been his main interest. Instead, Smith suggested that Gordon take on the editorship, which of course Gordon did (Figure 2). Gordon now was Editor of the Journal, secretary of the Division of Chemical Education, and Chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Maryland. Several high school and college teachers agreed to help Gordon produce the Journal as assistant editors. Clearly, Gordon was “burning the candle at both ends” when he could find time to do so.
Figure 2. The first issue of the Journal of Chemical Education.
Figure 3. Francis Patrick Garvan, the U.S. Alien Property Custodian. (Image courtesy of the Chemical Heritage Foundation and used with permission. Reprinted from ref 8.)
virtual monopoly on their products, which ranged from chemicals through mechanical devices. Garvan, as the Alien Property Custodian (the official who was appointed by President Wilson to seize and manage enemy property in the United States during and after World War I), produced a report that was presented in an address to the National Cotton Manufacturers Association describing the “German menace”,7 which was the result of 19 months of study of German industrial life and its manifestations and activities in the United States. Garvan’s analysis involved lawyers working on documents obtained from correspondence between principals of the German-controlled U.S. industries and accountants scrutinizing detailed financial documents of those same industries. The general conclusion of all this effort is best described in Garvan’s own words:9
Francis Patrick Garvan (1875−1937) and the Chemical Foundation
Garvan was a distinguished lawyer in New York City and also an Assistant District Attorney in that city (Figure 3).8 President Woodrow Wilson named Garvan as the President of the Chemical Foundation, the assets of which were the German alien properties taken over during and after World War I. The German assets in the United States were considerable, consisting mostly of German companies, often chemistry-related, that had a 20
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
First and foremost, be it understood that this was an industrial war, brought on by industrial Germany in her lustmad haste to capture the markets of the world. Industrial Germany in its arrogance and pride preferred the formidable hazard of battle to the progressive and sure infiltration which within ten or twenty years might well have given her the world domination she sought from complacent and unthinking peoples.Industrial Germany was in control of Imperial Germany. Industrial Germany sympathized and participated in the preparation for this war. Industrial Germany waged this war. Industrial Germany was the first to see defeat and forced the military peace, in order that with her industrial equipment intact she might continue that same war by intensified and concentrated economic measures.Her ambitions are the same in peace and in war. Her methods are the same in peace and in war. Destroy your business competition by state aid, cartel combination, dumping, fullline forcing, bribery, theft of patents or inventions, espionage, and propaganda! Garvan’s analysis also included some postwar observations. [A]t this moment the four men best suited to conduct a ruthless economic war upon this country, the four men who planned, instigated and paid for all the black history of lawlessness under which we suffered for two and a half years, Dr. Albert, Dr. Dernburg, Captain Boy-Ed, and von Bernstorff, are the helmsmen of the present German Government. Dr. Heinrich Albert is now Under-Secretary of State; Herr Bernhard Dernburg is now Minister of Finance; Boy-Ed is Director of the Intelligence Section of the Foreign Office, the Espionage and Propaganda Division; and that arch-criminal, Bernstorff, is over them all, directing and leading the new Government.Has the war ended ...?It was Germany’s chemical supremacy that gave her confidence in her avaricious dream of a world empire. It was German’s chemical supremacy that enabled her to wage four years of pitiless warfare. And it is Germany’s chemical supremacy upon which she relies to continue this war; and for that supremacy she pays homage to her dye industry, and counts upon that dye industry to maintain it.Since 1866 Germany has recognized the fact that upon the development of the dye industry rested her entire development of organic chemistry, that upon the development of organic chemistry rested, in an every-increasing measure, all the development of modern business, and modern warfare.And so she cherished the industry with wisdom and prevision while it was still in its childhood, and by her patience, by her persistence, by the willingness of her people to sacrifice in unselfish cooperation, she has gradually transformed the plans made in the year 1866 into the reality of to-day [1919].And now she realizes that her dye industry constitutes her keenest wedge with which to force her way back into the world trade. She calls the dye industry her chief “Protective Industry,” and has laid out for it a program of state protection and aid, which should startle us. She proposes to use the alleged necessities of the world for her dyes to force all her other exports. In other words, she proposes to use it as a club with which to fight her way back into commercial society. This quotation from Garvan may seem a bit long, but it does illustrate the passion and the fear that he held for the “defeated German leadership”. They were the same persons that generated the monopoly before the war and were not to be trusted. One way to thwart the perceived resurgence would be to create a strong system of science (chemical) education and a strong
American chemical industry. Garvan could use the German assets in a counter-offensive to the perceived continuing German threat. It is clear from Garvan’s analysis, as presented in the “German Menace” report, that he had developed a personal and fixated passion to “protect” American scienceespecially chemistry. This protection was manifested in the education area of interest in this paper, as well as others more associated with commercial U.S. chemical issues. As Alien Property Custodian, Garvan had access to the raw data that created his personal view of the “German Menace”, and as president of the Chemical Foundation, he had the power and the resources to protect American science (chemistry) as he saw fit. Now, what does all this have to do with our interest here? Early in the first year of producing the Journal, Gordon received a visit from a “Mr. Koehn” who wanted to know some basic things about the Journal. Gordon, as was his wont, answered Koehn’s questions as completely as he could, even though Gordon later described Mr. Koehn as “not being all there”.7 While attending the ACS meeting in Ithaca on Journal business, Gordon received a cryptic telegram: Come to my office as soon as work finished in Ithaca. Have an important matter to take up with you. Francis P. Garvan The income of the Chemical Foundation was $8.6 million per year. No dividends were paid to any shareholders, and the Foundation’s officers received no salaries for their work. Of course, Gordon had no idea of Garvan’s position at the time he met with him. In essence, Garvan wanted Gordon to make the Journal bigger in size; he wanted Gordon to drop his faculty appointment and move to New York, and he wanted to send Gordon around the United States for a year to organize regional chemical education groups. Gordon refused to move to New York City, but his salary at Maryland from that time on was paid by Garvan. In other words, Gordon’s position at the University of Maryland was bought out so he could devote all of his time to promote and serve chemical education. Mack Publishing Company
The first printer for the Journal was the Mack Publishing Company. Harvey F. Mack (Figure 4)10 was instrumental in helping the fledgling Journal get out its first issues while the editorial staff were acquiring experience. There developed a close association between the Journal and Mack Printing Company that helped keep the Journal afloat during the Great Depression.
Figure 4. Harvey F. Mack. Reprinted from ref 10. 21
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Sputnik and the Chemical Education Materials Study Response
All this was happening in the early days of the DivCHED’s evolution of the BCCEs (Biennial Conference on Chemical Education), which had their genesis in the Snowmass, Colorado, Conference of 1970. That conference essentially set out the ground rules for the first of the BCCEs that was held at Mount Holyoke College in 1972.12 A recurring goal was to make the BCCEs accessible to precollege teachers by holding them at venues that could support family activities and at times convenient to teachers. The BCCEs most often gave rise to extensive reports13 that assisted in spreading the information, points of view, spontaneous contributions when they could be captured, and so forth, to a broader audience. The High School Chemistry Committee was established at the long-range planning conference at the Fort Collins BCCE in 1978. The charge to this committee was to bring high school teachers into the main body of chemical educators, which at the time was the Division of Chemical Education. One of the early chairs of the High School Committee was Jim DeRose (Figure 5),14 who became publications coordinator of the Journal in 1974 during my watch as editor-in-chief. As John W. Moore, another former editor-in-chief, has written:15
On 4 October 1957, the world awakened to strange beepings from space. The Soviet Union had won the Space Race! The beginning of the Space Age was a part of the larger Cold War. The Soviets had gained a perceived advantage, which to many demonstrated a technological advantage that the Soviets had over the West. The U.S. Congress responded to this perceived technological superiority by passing the National Defense Education Act in 1958. It called for spending some $5 billion on higher education in the sciences, foreign languages, and the humanities. The National Science Foundation supported projects to improve the teaching of the sciences in high schools. For example, the Chemical Education Materials StudyCHEM Studywas one of the science curriculum studies in the late 1950s.11 This program supported by the National Science Foundation offered grants totaling approximately $2,800,000 through 1968 to the University of California, Berkeley, and to Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California. The Study began in late 1959 after a committee appointed by the American Chemical Society suggested that there were many ways in which high school chemistry might be taught, and that at least two of them should be explored with the support of the National Science Foundation. One was the Chemical Bond Approach Project (CBA). CHEM Study was established to explore a second possible way of presenting a first course in chemistry. The goals of CHEM Study, as set forth in its original proposal to NSF,11 were to: 1. Diminish the current separation between scientists and teachers in the understanding of science. 2. Encourage teachers to undertake further study of chemistry courses designed to keep pace with advancing scientific frontiers, and thereby improve teaching methods. 3. Stimulate and prepare those high school students who intended to continue the study of chemistry in college as a profession. 4. Further, in those students who will not continue the study of chemistry after high school, an understanding of the importance of science in current and future human activities. In seeking to attain these objectives, the main activities of CHEM Study were to produce, test, refine, and publish course materials for use by high school chemistry teachers and students. The materials produced by the Study included a textbook, a laboratory manual, a teacher’s guide, two series of tests, two programmed sequences in mathematical skills, 26 motion pictures for classroom use, 17 motion pictures for teacher training, two films for dissemination of information, several short loop films and filmstrips based on the motion pictures, and teachers’ guides for all filmed materials. The Study disseminated information about its work through newsletters and voluminous correspondence, and by furnishing, on request, speakers and consultants for meetings and conferences of science teachers and school administrators. During the summers of 1960 and 1961, the Study conducted institutes to acquaint a total of about 125 teachers with its preliminary materials. In effect, the CHEM Study project was a harbinger of many of the ideas currently associated with the “chemistry for all” initiative. The CHEM Study environment identified the creative advantages that could be attained using groups of high school and college faculties working on common problems.
Figure 5. Jim DeRose, the Journal’s first publications coordinator and a former high school teacher, and his wife, Ann, talk with Mickey Sarquis, the first editor of the secondary school section. Reprinted from ref 14.
Chemical education has benefitted enormously from Jim DeRose’s quiet, selfless, and courteous, yet firm, influence. John went on to observe:15 This Journal might not exist, there might be no High School Days at ACS meetings, offerings from the ACS Education and International Activities Division might be quite different, and literally thousands of students might be less interested in chemistry. Because of Jim DeRose’s activity on our behalf, the ACS Board of Directors and the ACS Corporation Associates agreed to supply funds for the Journal over a three-year period to • Approximately double the number of pages planned primarily for high school teachers. • Support an editor for the Secondary School Chemistry Section of the Journal. • Mount a promotional and evaluation program for this activity. As Bill Cook, Chairman of the Board of Publications, and Derek Davenport, Chair of DivCHED wrote,16 22
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Notes
The grant will provide invaluable assistance in assembling and publishing materials high school chemistry teachers need to keep abreast of developments and to enliven their teaching. It will also offer those teachers new opportunities for sharing their best ideas and experiences with others. As Tom Lippincott, the Journal editor who preceded me, wrote,17 After years of indecision, equivocation, and downright arrogance, all areas of the ACS now appear intent upon creating the conditions and establishing the atmosphere that will enable high school teachers to feel they are a part of the family of professional chemists. The immediate result of the generous ACS three-year grant was the hiring of Mickey Sarquis (Figure 5)14 as the first Secondary School Chemistry Editor in 1979. Our plan was, at first, to make it obvious using a characteristic logo that certain well-defined pages were specifically present in each issue of the Journal and to draw attention to the new initiative. We then, over time, gradually made the logo disappear by printing it lighter and lighter until it was goneintegrated into the body of the Journal. This was our attempt to intermingle high school and other readers thereby illustrating that the entire Journal offering should be of interest to all. Indeed, when I was editor, we had a surprisingly large number of subscribers from industry.
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful for the assistance of two libraries for locating several obscure information sources: The Mallet Library at The University of Texas at Austin (David Flaxbart) and the Archives of Union College (Ellen Fladger).
■
■
SUMMARY My thesis is that we are what we are and we are doing what we do because it cannot be otherwise; we serve the needs of chemistry teachers at all levels because of the singular event experienced by Neil Gordon when he heard a paper at the 1921 meeting of the ACS in Rochester, New York. That event ultimately led to the creation of the Division of Chemical Education and the Journal of Chemical Education. It also led to the formation of a national committee on the curricula of high school and college chemistry teaching. The high school initiative picked up needed momentum as a result of the Sputnik event. The resources to keep the high school initiative moving forward have become available through the intervention of a number of unanticipated events and creative people who could respond to the same. • First, there was Neil Gordon with his extraordinary tenacity to accomplish the tasks he set for himself. • Edgar F. Smith, ACS president, used the power of his office to establish the Division of Chemical Education and to appoint its first Secretary. • Francis Garvan gave impetus to the early efforts of the Journal of Chemical Education. We would be remiss if we did not recognize the countless hours of “sweat equity” that have been poured into this effort by people we could identify18 and an unknown, but probably larger, number who are anonymous. I am convinced that the Journal and the Division will continue to orbit a central point that represents the needs of all the chemistry teachers for a very long time. We cannot be any more or any less than who we are and who we are destined to be.
■
REFERENCES
(1) A version of this paper (P763) was presented at the 22nd Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE) held at Penn State University, July 29−August 2, 2012 at a symposium titled “Celebrating Secondary School Chemistry in the Journal of Chemical Education”.http://www.bcceprogram.haydenmcneil.com/conference-info/ s69b-celebrating-secondary-school-chemistry-journal-chemicaleducation (accessed September 2013). (2) Charter, Constitution, Bylaws, and Regulations of the American Chemical Society. http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/about/ governance/charter/WPCP_011802 (accessed September 2013). (3) Bohning, J. J. The 1893 World’s Congress of Chemists: A Center of Crystallization in a Molecular Mélange. Bull. Hist. Chem. 1989, 3, 16−20. (4) See for example, Scientific Societies [Reports of Meetings]. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1909, 1, 127. (5) Hurd, C. B. Theories for the Mechanism of the Setting of Silicic Acid Gels. Chem. Rev. 1938, 22, 403−422. (6) Hagan, W. J., Jr. Charles Hurd and Colloid Research at Union College, 1923−1959. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 191−193. (7) Gordon, N. E. The Section, Division, and Journal of Chemical Education. A Brief Historical Retrospect. J. Chem. Educ. 1943, 20, 369− 372. (8) Benfey, T. Visions, Achievements, and Challenges of the Division of Chemical Education during the Early Years. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (6), 651−657. (9) Palmer, A. M.; Garvan, F. P. Aims and Purposes of the Chemical Foundation, Incorporated: And the Reasons for Its Organization; The De Vinne Press: New York, 1919; 51−70. (10) From Past Issues: The More Things Change... J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (12), 1506. (11) A comprehensive description of all aspects of the CHEM Study project appears in Merrill, R. J.; Ridgway, D. W. The CHEM Study Story; W. H. Freeman and Co.: San Francisco, CA, 1969. (12) Bent, H. The Mt. Holyoke Conference: A Sequel to Snowmass. J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, 307. (13) Many of these reports were published in the Journal; see for example, The Report of the Sixth Biennial Conference on Chemical Education. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 1−18. (14) News from Journal House. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (11), 1360. (15) Moore, J. W. The Magical Touch of a Perceptive Individual. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 295. (16) Cook, W. B.; Davenport, D. A. In Appreciation of an ACS Grant To Expand the Secondary School Chemistry Section. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 261. (17) Lippincott, W. T. For High School Chemical Education: A New Agenda. J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55, 615. (18) Journal History: Guiding the Journal of Chemical Education. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (11), 1373−1380.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. 23
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300820v | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 17−23
