as the transparently-coated surface. It was stated in the article that this section deals with optical effects commonly obsenred when a transparent film, such as varnish, wax, glaze or water, covers a less transparent surface. The example of varnish (frequently applied by easel painters) over a paint layer was specificallv chosen. Water on stone.. .. elaze on ceramics. or wax 0.n a floor Are other examples mentimed and could ha"e been used equallv I believe Billme\.er's ~. well in the ill~~stratiun. criticism stems from a misreading of that section and therefore is not relevant to what I stated. For simplification, the artist's paint layer (pigment and binder) was drawn in Figure 9 as a material capable of reflecting, scattering, and absorbing light by means discussed in earlier sections of the article. Application of a layer of varnish on top of this dry paint layer modifies the appearance of the painting as described in the article. Thomas 8. Brill University of Delaware Newan. DE 19711
Further Thoughts on the Integrated Lab To the Editor: Having operated an integrated chemistry lahoratory program for a number of years, we read the recent article by Cartwright in the April 1980 issue of this Journal (pp 309311) with interest. We would like to add some of our own personal opinions to this topic. One difficulty in comparing the integrated to the "traditional" approach is the degree and level of integration that is comtemplated; for example, does i t include the Freshman laboratory, is it limited to two or three areas and one or two semesters or is i t more comprehensive, does it include nonmaiors. Our oroeram encomoasses all the reouired laboratorv coirses for ciemistry major; beyond the ~ r e s h m a nyear, and our comments are made in that context. This level of integration avoids the problem expressed in one of the comments ouoted in Cartwriaht's oaoer reeardine reduction of material covered. obvious&, in&&cing phys~calchemistry into an organic synthesis course reduces the time available for organic syntheses but it makes room in the physical chemistry course to introduce organic synthesis if the integration extends that far. In our switch from a "traditional" to an integrated program, the actual lahoratory time spent on techniques typical of organic, physical, inorganic and analytical laboratories was kept much the same, aIthough in any major change, re-evaluation of objectives and modernization of experiments is likely to bring about changes in emphasis: in our case, togreater use of instrumentation. With respect to the experiments required for an integrated oroeram. our experience has been that manv of the existinn . experimvn~sca~;swve as the core, uith integration coming through relatively straiahrforward ctml~iniltiomand modifications. Many of the advantages of integration are achieved by the appropriate juxtaposition of separate experiments. Only a relatively small number of new integrated experiments usually need to be introduced, so that the problems of making unfamiliar experiments work need not be a major obstacle. There are two laboratory texts that weareaware of that deal
368
Journal of Chemical Education
with integrated experiments [U. A. Hofacker, "Chemical Experimentation," W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1972, and D. A. Aikens e t a]., "Integrated Experimental Chemistry," Vols 1 and 11, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 19781, as well as examples to be found in this Journal. Areas that do not lend themselves to integration need not be left out; there is nothing wrong with a few non-integrated experiments in the program. It is also obvious that for the lahoratory to be effective, the arrangement of ex~erimentsin the lahoratorv. .program must . be correlated in some way with the theory courses that the students take. T h e severity of this problem deoends on individual curricula. ~ t t e m p t to s ope;ate a laboratory without reference to preceding and concurrent courses and to provide the necessary theoretical material by means of extensive hand-outs, seems to us to be introducing unnecessary difficulties and makes an artificial houndam between lecture and lahoratory. It is not necessary in every case that the theory orecede the ex~eriments.Indeed. i t can be educationallv verv iewardin,: to tkke the opposite approach, but we have found that this is successful only if done to a llmited extent. The fact that not all students in an integrated program can do the same experiments a t the same time because of equipment limitations is equally true for a traditional program a t the same level. I t is not appropriate here to discuss the academic advantages and disadvantages of the integrated lahoratory; besides, these are highly dependent on the type of integration under consideration. However, some practical advantages of a fully integrated Droeram can be realized if the lahoratorv courses . .. in the program come under a central direction, a virtual imoossihilitv with seoarate lahoratories. l'his can lead to more kfficient &e of technical staff,whose attention can be focussed on the lahoratorv oroeram as a whole and not on individual. often competing, units of it. There can he more efficient usd of expensive instruments by more flexihle scheduling of experiments, and it avoids the absurdity of equipment earmarked for a special laboratory lying idle when that laboratory is not operating, but being duplicated to fill the needs of another. Costs depend on what experiments are done; an integrated program is inherently neither more nor less expensive than a traditional program a t the same level, although the former offers more potential for reducing costs through greater standardization. Because the reassessments made in changing to such a program are likely to require more modern equipment, expenses may increase. There are oractical advantaees to the student in not havine to adapt to the idiosyncracies l f several different laboratories: Once the neneral reauirements are learned in the first semester of the proRram, sl~ccrcdingsemesters can he starred with little lime wasted. Instruction can bc dctailc-d earlv in the program but the amount of detail decreased in a grad;al and controlled manner until the students are doing.essentially independent work a t the end. Finally, we fully endorse Cartwright's chsing remarks. It is not the form of the laboratory program that is of the greatest importance, but the content and above all the approach toward it and faculty interest in its operations that matter. ~
~
R. A. Bailey J. W. Zubrick
Rensselaer Polytechnic Instilute Troy, NY 12181
