The Hawthorne Effect and the Teaching of Chemistry In the nineteen-twenties Elton Mayo, one of the pioneers of scientific management, carried out an experiment a t the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Comoanv in Chicano which has become celebrated in manaeement studies. The company's engineerr wished to check the effect of the level of factory illummatwn on worker pmdurti\.ity. Accordingly. M a y adected two worker groups and explained the project t o them. The frrat, a control group, was lcft at the furmrr illummation lewl, whrle the pecond group was subjected to variations uf the level of illumination at the work bench. The result of the experiment was, a t that time, as unexpected as i t was striking. The productivities of both control and experimental worker groups increased, regardless of the actual illumination levels used in the experiment. Furthermore, even when the original illumination level was restored, i t was found that output had increased substantially over the level that had existed before the exoeriment started. The conr.usion Mayo drew from these resulta was that the change in illumination level was nut asignificant factor in the increased productivity. The only significant factor Was a psycholog~calone. Hy explaining the prupoaed experiment to the groups o i workers Mayo had enlisted their co-operation and had enhanced their self-image. The imprmement in productivity followed because of the consequent change of the workers' attitude to their work. I believe that the Hawthorne Effect, as the ahove phenomenon is known, is an important one to bear in mind in a t least two contexts for teachers of chemistry. Every year, in this Journal, we read of experiments undertaken on new modes of instruction in chemistry, and new techniques for chemistry teaching. However, it does not always seem to be appreciated by instructors undertaking experiments in the teaching of chemistry that they are not carrying out physical science experiments. hut rather exoeriments in a socialscience. In interoretine" reoorts of these exoeriments and their results.~.we should he BWRIP of the ~ a w h o r n Effect. e The F:ifect manifests itsilf in an enhanced 'uutput': 11 e , a better set of teaching outcomes, such as test IPSUIL~Jwhen a suhlect group is taken into the experimenter's t i e instructor's) coniidcnce, tur the psyvholugical reasons suggested. We have to ask ourselves, in evaluating positive results claimed for experiments in chemical education, whether they were achieved because of improved techniques of methodology, or whether they simply reflect a positive response by the students to the mere idea that they are being involved in an experiment. In most published studies it is impossible to disentangle these two factors, and, putting it as pessimistically as possible, we might conclude that the only true test of a novel teaching approach to chemistry is to apply i t for a long enough period that it becomes a new norm, and then see if it is~, iudzed "~ to be oroducine imoraved results. However, there i* another, more positive, aspect of the Hawthurne Effect. Even if it lead$ u, pesarmrsm about the prospects uievaluating the results of educatiunal exp+rimmta, it leads to optimism ahout the bcnelicial results IA, k expected if we involve our c l a s w actrvely in the exemtion of planned educatronal change. The exmence of the Effect should encourage us t o experiment in the content, technology, and methodology of our chemistry teaching, and to let our classes know that we areexperimenting. The aim of such experimentation is not necessarily t o test whether the changes we make would have long term lasting advantages over our present methods; it is rather t o revitalize both students and teachers in a joint quest for renewed interest in the subject. In this respect, the Hawthorne Effect can be a powerful aid to chemistry teachers.
.
-
..
~.
~
~~
~
~~~
~~~
~~
~
~~~~~
.
~
~~
.~
- .~~~ ~
California S t a t e University Los Angeles Los Angeles, 90032
408 1 Jourml of Chemical Education
~
Harold Goldwhite
