High School Chemistry: Preparation for College or Preparation for Life? Edward T. Walford Cheyenne Mountain High School, Colorado Springs. CO 60906 Recent literature suggests that we are in the middle of another crisis in science education (1-7). Does anyone remember when we weren't? Gardner has written that the third critical period in the histow of science education in the United States has begun (3). ~ e f o r we e consider the present situation, let's review the two previous rrist.. T h r ftrst crittrnl period hegan with the election of Charles Eliot as president t,f Harvard Uni\,ersity in laG9 1 8 ) .k:liot made high school science one of the requirements for admission to Harvard. The standards for chemistry were developed by Josiah Cooke in 1886; his "pamphlet" contained 83 experiments of which 60 had to he completed and reported by the hieh schwl student. The influence of Harvard and Cooke's publication was so great that it produced a revolutionary swing toward the use of lahoratorv instruction in secondarv schools. Prior to this time chemistry was primarily a lecture course with an occasional demonstration hv a darine teacher. As usual, the pendulum swung tw'far. In some high schools recitations were completely abandoned and all student time was spent in the laboratory. Teachers became increasingly resentful of the dictates of Harvard's "pamphlet." The major complaints were (1) that it had little of the descriptive chemistry needed to give life to the laws and theories of chemistry and (2) that most students were too immature to comprehend the abstract principles involved (8).By 1910 the strong emphasis on lab work and principles was decreased, hut Eliot and Cooke had effectively changed . the nature of high . school chemistry. The second critical period in science education hegan when the Soviet Union placed the first satellite in orbit in 1957. The United States reacted by entering a period of questioning and soul-searching. How could the world's most advanced nation he in second place in the space race? Some of the blame eventually filtered down to the high schools. In particular, the math and science curricula came under heavy attack from the public and government. In 1959 the American Chemical Society funded a committee to develop a new high school chemistry course. The committee listed three general deficiencies of the high school curricula ( I ) . They were Preoccupied with the memorization of history, descriptive detail, and technology. 2) Not emphasizing the major unifying concepts and principles of modern chemistry. 3) Devoid of meaningful laboratory work. 1)
The new course became known as the Chemical Education Materials Study or CHEM Study. It used the inquiry approach in developing concepts and in laboratory investigations. The commercial materials were published by Freeman in 1963, and the use of CHEM Study became increasingly popular, peaking in the early 1970's when about 30% of the U.S. high schools were using the program. Since then, its popularity has been gradually decreasing ( 1 ). It is only fair to say, however, that CHEM Study has influenced many teachers and has caused major changes in traditional courses. There have been second thoughts raised about the 1960's reforms in science courses. Richard Atkinson, upon his re-
tirement as Director of the National Science Foundation in 1980, said dents who will take these courses. If you take a lwk at a typical high school textbook, my belief is that it asks too much. I'd much prefer to see them taught at a less demanding level, but ensuring that a much larger proportion of the students will take them.
He also said that the new courses contributed to the public's decreased understanding of science. Similarly, Bill Aldridge, executive director of the National Science Teacher's Association commented (2): The curriculum reforms of the 60's were purist and elitist. They were intended to educate the top students but they were far too difficult far the majority of students. The new curriculum was too heavy on theory and abstraction and applications were eliminated. The result was that science became less interesting to mast students and their ability to succeed was lowered. In the 1980's we are well into the third critical period in science education. Ward Worthy of Chemical and Engineering News recently wrote that a problem becomes a crisis when the comnlainers are oersuasive enoueh and oersistant enough to draw the attention of politicians &d journalists (6). We seem to have arrived a t that point. The characteristics of the present crisis are low enrollments in math and science. a shortaee of comnetent math and science tearhers, and an inrreasing'public i&rance on suhjects relating 10 scirnw and technology. l'hr Nntional Academy of Scienres recently studted t hr prot~lrmand listrd the harmful effects of drcrearing icienttfic Ittrritq 15 I 1) It weakens our national security. 2) It affects our ability to compete in the technologicsl world. 3) It is a major contributor to unemployment. 4) It undermines the concept of an informed electorate in a participatory democracy. We have arrived at this state because the 1980's are nothing like the 1960's. The science programs developed for the 60's are not appropriate for teaching science today. We can see now that science and technology impact upon a wide range of our economic, social, and political policies and decisions. A basic understanding of science is hecomine: a requirement for more jobs. Our q u a k y of life, perhaps even ou; national security, depends on the quality and the amount of science education offered by our schools. Today's science education must recognize the role that science and technoloev v resolvine -..~ l .a in tGe problems of our age. The problem of low enrollment in science is central to the issues discussed here. How many of our graduating high schwl seniors have had the traditional science courses? One source reports that 45%have studied biology, 16%chemistry, and 9%, physics (3). What we have, in effect, is a funnel which yields only 16 chemistry-trained students and 9 physics-trained students for every 100 students who complete high school. The situation is no better in mathematics: only 7% have had an advanced math or calculus course. The effect of the funnel is illustrated in another wav hv an NSF survey of college-bound seniors. When asked what field thev intended to studv in colleee. - . 22.1% said bioloeical " .(or health-related) science, 10.1% said engineering, 4.5% said Volume 60
Number 12
December 1983
1053
mathematics or computer science, and only 2.2% chose the phvsical sciences (9). The enrollment figures in science are even more alarming when the nonscience maior or the student who does not attend college is considered. klthough a hasic understanding of science is useful in many nonscience johs, scientific literacy is increasingly essential for particip&n in areas of public concern. Yet the scientific hackground of our public leaders is questionahle. T o evaluate this point, the author recently surveyed fiO government leaders a t the local, state, and national level. The survev included mavors. renre. . eovernors. sentatives, senators a i d cabinet secretaries. These are'the oeoole . . who make the decisions for us ahout the environment. energy resources, toxic wastes, nuclear weapons, and the space program. Only three simple questions were asked 1) Did vou eomolete a hieh school chemirtrv course?
The "yes" answers on the first two questions were H.S. Chpm 69% 75
Local State
National
83
Total
14
Coll. Chem
The results of this survev show that more of our leaders had high school chemistry than had college chemistry. Only one resoondent had colleee chemistrv without previously having had high s c h ~ dchemistry. It is-interesting that there is a" increasing tendency to take high school chemistry hut a decreasing tendency to take college chemistry when the level of leadership increases from the local to the national level. When asked how often they believe that their johs involve chemical-related issues, these leaders responded as follows Local State
National Total
Rarely 15%
... ... 6
Occasionally
Frequently
23%
67 17
62% 33 83
39
55
Ninety-four percent of these leaders (all nonscientists) helieve that they are involved a t least occasionally with chemicalrelated issues. This includes five respondents who did not study chemistry a t either level. Comparison of American student performance in science to students of other nations is also cause for concern. For example, Soviet students take four years of chemistry, including one year of organic, and five years of physics (4). While the point is not clear in the reference it is most likely that these suhiects are not attended on a dailv basis. The Soviet figures may also he questioned from the view that their curriculum still allows them to eraduate 98% of their students. Renardless, Americans cannot ;;ossibly be satisfied with US. enkllment fizures. If we believe in the merits of our case, what can he done to increase the enrollment in the physical sciences? For a long time I was satisfied with a 4&50% enrollment in my chemistry course. I did notice, however, that chemistry was being missed by many good and capable students, students who thought the course was too difficult or who said that they had little interest in science. My observations tend to agree with arecent survey conducted to determine "why students don't take more science courses." Chemistry is often viewed as a course which reauires special intellectual talents and which is generally irrelevantto everyday life (1). Part of our problem in science education is the elective system under which most schools operate. Only one-third of the school systems require two years of science in grades 9-12. The second course is usually biology, and chemistry is almost always taken as an elective. Proposals are periodically made to change the elective system or to raise the science and math 1054
Journal of Chemical Education
requirements for graduation (3). I would agree that a concerted effort should be made to require two years of high school science in all school systems. Rut major changes of this type take a long time and require hroad professional and nuhlic suooort. The trouhle heeins with the selection of .. sul~jertsor acti\,itles to la. 4iminatt.d in order to make room for nvw rt~ur.ws.'l'hisnvrn~~rrehrm m81v not hr feasihleand will certainly he time-consuming. In the meantime, if we can convince students that the study of chemistry is within their capabilities, that it is interesting, and that it will help them in their everyday lives, then we will have students heating a t our doors and demanding the right to enroll. What kind of course will effect the change in student. attitudes that will produce these results? It would seem that we have two conflicting demands: ( I ) to prepare the student who intends to continue a t the collew level and 12) to educate the large hulk of students who d o n & plan a science-related career and who may wish to enroll in their one and only chemistry course. Some large schools may profit from having two separate courses, but most schools cannot afford this luxury. Besides, those students who nlan to continue in science need the chemical survival information as well as the second group. The hasic objectives of a chemistrv course for the 1980's should include the chemical survival concepts as well as the concepts and techniques which are essential for further study. There is another major point to consider when designing a new course. Introductory chemistry courses should not be elitist courses. The tendency to present chemistry as a collection of abstract theories must be modulated, and a reaw n o h l v mathematicill level should he dvttmn~ned.Studies wing I'iaeet's learnlnr theories have shown thnt less than half of senior high students can reason a t the formal level (10). We should make a conscious effort to present more concepts a t il 11,vrl u h ~ c h the avemgt: student can underit;ind. The 19.8 \lrMastvr ('onference on "iieu I ) i r t 4 1 min the Chemistry Curr~culwn"came (rut stnmgly i t 1 favor of r r turninc descriptive chemistry to intn,dnrt,sr? chemistry courses-hoth high schwl and college (11 ). I am in agreement with this philosophy and have put it in practice in my own course where enrollment has now reached 75%. Chemistry should be taught through the reactions and properties of real materials, particularly materials which might be encountered in real-life situations. This should include some organic chemistrv and . oolvmer . chemistrv as well as the traditional inorganic and physical chemistry. T h e inclusion of more descriptive chemistry and what I have called "chemical survival information" obviously requires the removal or deemphasis of other topics. The McMaster group suggested that much of quantum mechanics and thermodvnamin ~resentlvtaught could he removed (11). In effect, the study said that atbmic&bitals are appropriate, hut hybrid atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals, and electron configurations are less important. Heats of reactions may he retained, hut the concepts of entropy and free energy are not necessary. Chemical educators should reexamine the material presently being taupht because it has grown to an unteachahle size. Sump topics included are tcr, nmplex to I w treilled adequately in thc available tin~e.Otht.r< are s~mplynot nvkt.;%an.in a high school course. There is far too much overlap and repetition hetween high school and college courses. We are truly in a critical period in science education. In many ways, though, it appears to be the same one we have been in for the nast 100 vears. It is simolv this: How do we best present a s c i e k e which we believe is essential to a full and productive life, and how do we reach the largest possible audience? It is my belief that the high school course should he designed to be of maximum benefit to the students as thev prepare for their future lives. It should not he tailored henefit the college chemistry professor or a possihle future employer. I have tried to point out ways in which chemistry should he redirected so as to achieve these goals.
Volume 60 Number 12
December 1983
1055
