Instruction in the Organic Chemistry Laboratory: Past, Present, and Future
I
I
D ~ O V O C ~ C ~ V
Most of us take laboratory instruction in chemistry for granted. After all, chemistry is an experimental science and the laboratory is "where the action is!" Has this alwavs been true of chemical education? Have students of chemistry always been taught in the classrooms and laboratories of the university? A quick look a t some historical accounts of the early years of modern chemistry reveals that chemistry was first practiced by gifted amateurs, wealthy men, or men who attracted the financial support of wealthy patrons.' And chemistry was taught primarily in the pharmacist's shop, not the university laboratory. Laboratory instruction at the university quickly developed early in the 19th century with Justus von Liebig as the foremost innovator. Although Liehig did not establish the first academic laboratory in chemistry, his laboratory a t the University of Giessen, founded in 1824, was among the early ones and it is regarded as by far the most successful and productive of these early laboratories. Liebig called the laboratories of the other chemists "kitchens" and considered his laboratory to be the first true instructional laboratory in chemistry. The most notable feature of his laboratory program was a heavy emphasis on precise chemical analysis. Most chemists a t this time were more concerned with metallurgical and pharmaceutical processes of a preparative or qualitative type. The remarkable success of Liebig's lahoratory and those of some of his colleagues-especially Wohler's laboratory a t Gdttingen-enabled the Germans to supplant the French during the 19th century as the leaders in chemical science. In fact, many of the men most responsible for the development of chemistry in the United States, Chandler, 0. W. Gibbs, Horsford, Nason, Remsen, E. F. Smith, and others, received training in Liebig's or Wohler's lahoratory. What were the special characteristics of Liebig's laboratory that may provide insight into its success and perhaps some guidance for us even today? Ihdel gives the following description of Liebig and the Giessen lahoratory. There developed in the laboratory an esprit de corps which was a factor in spreading its fame. Liebig lived in the building and the students spent their entire day there; Aubel, the caretaker, complained about not being able to get them to leave. Liebig, a highly energetic man, had numerous projects under way at the same time. He gave the younger students little actual instruction in the laboratory, relying instead on his older students to act as his assistants in guiding the beginners in their work. The older students worked on original problems, turning in a report each morning on their progress the day before. Liebig discussed these reports with the various students in planning their future work. Thus, there was a great deal of activity of different kinds, and the students educated one another. The research work done in the Giessen laboratory covered a wide range of subjects. The energy and enthusiasm of Liebig are depicted as essential ingredients of his success. Also, the commitment of large blocks of time by Liebig and his students is highlighted. Finally, Liebig brought to his work a penchant for detail-precise chemical analysis, carefully planned and executed experiments, specially designed apparatus. These same factors may be found a t the heart of any successful experimental program in any field of science.
opinion Now let us turn to the successful instructional laboratory programs in chemistry today. What are their attributes? In all instances--so far as I know-they are led hy an energetic, enthusiastic person. And in a sense, each of these programs represents a joint venture on the part of students and instructor to learn something new and significant. Many successful programs are organized along traditional lines with a new experiment each lahoratory period and each experiment chosen to teach a particular technique or facet of organic chemistry. Several chemical educators have found an approach that I have labeled "Problem-Orientee more to their liking. I will return to this approach below. Integrated lahoratory programs have become increasingly attractive as the traditional barriers between sub-fields of chemistry have been eroded by new research areas such as hioinorganic chemistry or new curricular patterns which categorize chemistry by structural, dynamic, mechanistic, etc., concerns. Yet, another approach to laboratory instruction is available to some chemistry students today. A few COOP educational programs in which students divide their time and learning between the university and a place of employment grant academic credit for laboratory training in an industrial laboratory. This type of educational program may become more prevalent in the next decade. My personal experience in organic laboratory instruction has led to the development of a "problem-oriented" . ~ sought a mechanism that program of a novel n a t u ~ e We imparts meaning to all of the student's lahoratory experience. The experimental work in the more traditional laboratory programs has always seemed artificial and sterile to me. In fact, the only portion of the organic laboratory program of my student days that made a lasting impression on me was the course in qualitative organic analysis. This same experience has been related to me by other academic and industrial chemists. For all of us the most striking feature of the qualitative analysis laboratory was that it immersed us in a real problem-solving experience where the importance of techniques and chemical knowledge is reinforced by a larger goal, the solution to an uuderstandahle problem. A problem-oriented laboratory program usually includes a series of experiences that leads students from problems that are easily conceptualized, e.g., the identification of unknowns, through problems of a more subtle and searching nature, e.g., the planning and execution of a multistep synthesis. In between these components, my program has always had experiments that focus on relationships between structure and properties, and definition of reaction pathways. The of other instructors may differ considerably from mine since I believe the most important considerations for an instructor in planning a p k b lem-oriented program are These remarks are a summary of a paper given at the Fortieth Two-Year College Chemistry Conference, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, June 6 and 7, 1974. 'Ihde, A. J., "The Development of Modern Chemistry," Harper and Row, New York, 1964, pp. 259-270. Partington, J . R., "A History of Chemistry," Fife, W. K., J . CHEM. EDUC., 45,416 (1968). Volume 52. Number2. February 1975 / 119
1) The instructor should develop a sequence of experiences that
take the students from simple, obvious concerns to t h m that require considerable basic skill and knowledge, especially problems that are of immediate interest to the instructor himself. 2) The instructor must he genuinely interested in and enthusiastic about each part of the program. I am confident that if the above two considerations are met, the laboratory program will be no less successful than that of Liebig and other outstanding chemists. It will then be incumbent upon the student to take up the quest and bring his energy and talent to hear on problems of significance. What of the future? Will laboratory instruction in oreanic cbemistw undereo much chanee in the next decade? f foresee several possi6le changes dictated by at least four forces: (1) A trend toward more variety in styles of educational programming to provide closer-matches of student career goals with curriculum content and instructional techniaues: . . (2) . . A trend toward more varietv in student approaches to completing educational programs a t a universitv: (3) The availabilitv of a host of new instructional tools;- ( 4 ) he financial plight of higher education. It seems likely to me that most instruction in introductory courses for chemistry majors and nonmajors alike will minimize direct laboratory experience. The cost of offerine traditional lahoratorv nroerams for these students and i h e availability of new fnst;uctional techniques and tools will make it extremely difficult for instructors to resist the forces for change even if they should wish to do so. Since the "next-generation" programs will be highly automated, they can he made available to students on a 24
120
/ Journal of Chemical Education
hour a day basis and this may be an extremely attractive feature for students who attend an urban university. Now to the central concern of this paper. Will the instructors of organic chemistry give the computers and audio-visual devices center stage in their laboratory programs; should they do so? I firmly believe that the serious student of chemistry must sooner or later become skilled in experimentation and the sooner the better. For many of us, the laboratory and experiments with beautiful crystalline solids, strange smelling liquids, and fascinating apparatus was a major factor in our selection of chemistry~asa field of study. What then is the instructor of organic chemistry to do? A responsible answer that is simpler to articulate than to implement is to take the best from both approaches-the experimentalists like Liebig and the computer and audio-tutorial enthusiasts-and combine them to create educational experiences appropriate to the aptitude and interest of each student. For the nonmajor, pre-medical, pre-dental, etc. student, a lahoratory program that includes a substantial amount of simulated experimental work with computerized and audio-visual techniques may be appropriate. But for the chemistry major, I would insist that a considerable amount of traditional laboratory experience is necessary. This means that instructors of organic chemistry must be ever alert to ways of keeping the tools the servants, instead of the served. Thus, I see the years ahead as exciting and challenging ones for chemical educators.
Wilmer K. Fife Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, Indiana 46205
