VOL.5, No. 3
INTENSIVE TRAINING IN CHEMISTRY
317
INTENSIVE TRAINING IN CHEMISTRY* ALEXANDERSILVERMAN. UNIVERSITYOF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Superior work and a smaller percentage of failures observed in connection with intensive instruction in chemistry during summer sessions have prompted the writer to note his observations for the benefit of others who are interested in the teaching of chemistry. Before taking up the results of this intensive instruction it may be well to consider the effects of segregation on the basis of preliminary training in high schools. During the college years 1921-24 inclusive, all students were given the same course in general chemistry irrespective of preliminary training. The results are indicated by the solid lines in Figures 1 and 2. During 1925 and 1926 students were placed in separate classes, those having had chemistry being given more advanced instruction and a different textbook. The results for students who had no high-school preparation are indicated by dashes and for those who had high-school preparation by dotted lines in Figures 1 and 2. It will be observed that a greater number of students did superior work as the result of the segregation and that there were fewer failures. This observation leads the writer to believe that the distribution of students according to preparatory training is certainly a desirable step in advance of the older method of having all students take the same chemistry course. Next, a comparison is made between the interrupted college course in general chemistry and the intensive summer course. During the college year the student has one or two lectures per week, two recitations or one, together with a four-hour laboratory period depending upon whether he has had high-school chemistry or not. It is found that fewer lectures are necessary for those who have had high-school preparation. These stndents are scheduled for seven hours per week during the seventeen weeks of the semester. The summer students work from 8.00 to 1.00 daily, six days per week, for four weeks to cover a semester's work. During the college year students carry three or four subjects besides chemistry. During the summer they are not permitted to register for anything but chemistry and while they devote the five morning hours to lecture, recitation, and laboratory work, the afternoons and evenings are free for study and recreation. They have no subjects to think about except chemistry. The results for the first and second half of the course are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. In these diagrams, records from 1921 to 1927, inclusive, are considered. It will be observed that students do superior work during the summer sessions and that there is a much smaller number of low grades and failures. *Presented before' the Division of Chemical Education at the 74th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Detroit, Mich., Sept. 7, 1927.
To ascertain whether this tendency prevailed in more advanced courses where large numbers of students were taught, statistics were also con-
VOL.5, NO.3
INTENSW~ TRAINING IN CEIEMISTRY
319
sidered for organic chemistry. Here (Figures 5 and 6) it will again be observed that there is a greater proportion of superior work during the summer and a smaller number of low grades and failures. In the various diagrams presented, the numbers of students indicated are the totals for the entire periods mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. The grade A indicates a record of 90 to 100; B, 80 to 90; C, 70 to 80; D, 60 to 70; F, below 60. Included with F grades are students who withdrew from time to time but who had failed before withdrawing. The reader may feel that the smaller number of students taught during the summer session insures closer personal contact between the student
and the instructor and that this is responsible for the superior showing. The laboratory and quiz sections taught during the summer were equally as large as those scheduled during the college year, so this factor is eliminated. The writer finally advocates intensive instruction as a means towards superior work and the lowering of the number of failures. If this plan can be properly coiirdinated with the teaching of courses other than chemistry it should prove a step in advance of our present method of instruction. In an earlier paper' selective instruction was advocated. The teaching of students in small groups according to individual or group ability and the advancing of students according to this ability in a par-
' Ind. Eng. Chem., 16, 860 (1924).
ticular group can be applied to either of the above methods of instruction, further increasing the number of superior students and lessening the number of poor workers and failures. It is self-evident that selective instruction will cost more than the interrupted or intensive methods. The superior results would justify the added investment. Even better results could be obtained were our colleges and universities able to afford the employment of more mature and experienced teachers instead of placing so much responsibility upon
undergraduate or graduate assistants. Mature experience is just as essential in the giving of laboratory instruction as it is for lecturing. Conclusions 1. Mixed classes in general chemistry result in a larger number of poor records and failures than where the students are segregated on the basis of preparatory training. 2. Intensive instruction yields a higher percentage of superior grades and fewer low grades and failures than the interrupted training ordinarily given in colleges and universities. This is true for both elementary and more advanced classes. 3. Teaching in small groups on the basis of the student's ability to
progress should further increase superior work and lessen inferior work and failure. 4. The employment of a greater number of mature and experienced
1
ORDUIIC CBObLSTRT--%con& b l l - - C o l l e g e
ycer r s . w s r
teachers will also raise the standard of instruction and yield even better results. 5. Any or all of the improvements suggested are dependent upon the facilities and funds available.
