provocative opinion Is "Why" More Important Than "What"? Robert E. Schaffrath C. W. Post College, Greenvale, NY 11548 The hortatory essay titled, "Damn the Permanganate Volcanoes; Full Principles Ahead!", written by Frank L. Pilar, which appeared recently (1)forces one to the conclusion that the subject of course content in freshman chemistry is just as controversial as religion and politics. Regrettably, Pilar's exposition makes "descriptive chemistry," the study of fundamental inorganic chemistry, almost a pejorative term as well. He should, however, have noted that the writers of all hut two of the letters which he cited agreed with the viewpoint that he was attacking. We in chemical education have now been exverimentine with the theoretical approach in freshman chemi&y since the late 195O's. and evidence is mounting that it has not heen an unqualified success. Perhaps we should take note of the experiment with "new math" where it was apparently felt that if students were taught the theory of numbers they would understand mathematics and the boring drudgery of memorization would not be needed. What has been the result? A generation of students who can hardly compute, even with a Ealcu~ator.What is the result of our kxperimeit? A large body of chemistry graduates who are ignorant of fundamental inorganic chemistry and its application to our economy. Bernard S. Friedman, ACS president in 1974, was among the first to call this to our attention (2). His article was followed by a series of letters in C&E NEWS (3)which, in general, supported his feeling of alarm. The KMn04/H2S04explosion which initiated this series of writings may well have come as a result of ignorance. Davenport ( 3 , 4 ) has called for moderation in the current theoretical approach as has Sienko ( 5 ) ,whose pioneering text revolutionized freshman chemistry. Perhaps if high school chemistry courses would teach fundamental inoreanic chemistrv instead of the same material taught in elementary college chemistry courses the present curriculum would he valid, hut they do not! I received a letter from a high school teacher in Illinois which said, in part, ".. . I follow alone-frustrated and fractionated. Most of mv students do n o t understand "principles." Although m&y are interested in health careers. oreanic chemistrv has been eliminated. Those who take the University of llfinois placement test cannot do well without being dragged through orbitals, bonding, oxidation states, etc. We are trying to arrive a t a consensus on minimum basics, hut the current list is five pages long!"
728
Journal of Chemical Education
For some unaccountable reason, Pilar (as well as others) seems to feel that, if nothing else, a student should come awav from a course in freshmanchemistry conversant with all thk modern theories of chemical or molecular structure and hehavior hut not the facts or examples nor how to apply them. He also asked if we wished to train all our general(sic) chemistry students, most of whom-he states-are not going to he chemists, to he individually capable of carrying out chemical transformations. I say, why not? We do in organic chemistry where, once again, most of our students are not going to he chemists! Of what value are a knowledge of "the basic structure of matter and the general principles that seem to govern chemical transformations" if one does not know, on a fundamental level, what does or may happen when two simple substances are mixed or how to carry out a chemical transformation? Why aren't the basic chemical properties of suhstances, their source and a~vearance-the facts-iust as important as the mathemati& theoretical treatment? Pilnr also voiccs the rather incredible opinion that knowledge of s p 3 hybridized orbitals will he mire important than a knowledge of chemical transformation. Here he is echoing J. Arthur camphell ( 6 )who wrote, "Isn't i t possible that our students will find much moreuse in the next twenty years for, say, the second law of thermodynamics than for ideal gas hehavior, balancing chemical equations, synthesizing and naming an ester,or even knowing that silver chlorideis not a green gas?" (Would you trust a lawyer who thought a tort was something to eat?) How many students, having had the theoretical approach to chemistry in their freshman course, would be aware of, or look up in a book, the probable effect of mixing household ammonia and hypochlorite bleach or the bleach with toilet-howl cleaner, fairly common household chemicals, or why a lye solution should not he prepared in an aluminum container before carrvine out the oneration. Would a knowledge of s p 3 hyhridizatconie of heldhere? How can kinetic or thermodvnamic calculations be carried out. or new conlpound~synthesized, without halanced equation+" It is also the ovinion of I'ilar that the currentlv availnhlc textbooks seem to provide the background needeh in suhsequent courses. It has been found, however, that most students do not retain this material (5).I t seems that present-day authors compete with each other to produce a text that is more
rigorous than their competitors and turn out a plethora of guides for students as well as instructors to make their text able to be assimilated as well as presented. If it is in freshman chemistry that fundamental inorganic chemistry should be taught (for where else is there room for it?), then his perception is clouded for most freshman textbooks have one or two survey chapters on the metallic elements, one on the nonmetallic elements and one on nuclear chemistry. Furthermore, there is an increasing frequency of errors of fact appearing in these presently available texts. Has inorganic chemistry lost its importance beyond the bonding theory? In almost all cases where a reaction is given for a theoretical study, no mention is made of its use or application. I am reminded of a course in integral calculus that I once attended. The instructor, it seems in retrospect, spent endless time showing how the calculus could be used to "cut" bushings and washers but never an example of how the calculus could be used to solve a problem in chemistry or physics. I had the occasion to discuss the subject of this essay with a group of musicians during which I posed the question: do courses in musical theory enable one to play music or an instrument better than one who has not had the theory or, in other words, after having studied musical theory can one play an instrument? The reply was "first learn your instrument, then you can study the theory!" Essentially, we are expecting our students to play our instrument, inorganic chemistry, after
studying only the theory of the instrument, and they cannot! Perhaps, if we teach more chemistry, statements such as the following, which appeared on the editorial page of the New York Times (7). . .. can he avoided: ". . . T h e latest. . . warning comes.. . about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosohere. Some of that results from cutting of the world's forests, dhich releases carbon dioxide. But the chief cause is most likelv the burning of fossil fuels. They vary in the amount of carbbn they rele&e on burning. ~ a t " r a 1gas is the cleanest, then comes oil and then, progressively dirtier, come coal and synthetic fuels made from coal or shale oil . . . ." Far from beinz a balanced treatment of chemistry, present-day freshman chemistry is heavily biased toward theoretical material that neither gives a good working knowledge of inorganic chemistry nor is a good preparation for organic chemistry. Literature Cited 111 P i l a r . F r s n k L . . I . C ~EDUC..SS,803119811. ~~. 121 Fri~dmsn,Bernard S.. Them Ens. Neu8.22 14 NO".19741. (31 Femander, Frank E..and Whilaker. Rohert u..C & ti News. 3 (13 .Ian 19751: Teeil. ,Inaeph H., T & ENPIII*,:I !l3Jan. 19751; Davenport. DerekA..Chem. Enp N r m :I 1lSdan. I97hl:Sioaren.C.N.,C&EN~u;a.:i:ll:iFeb.1M5I:Kanfman,HarrvF..Chem. En# N m s : 3 1 : I ~ e h19711. . Derek A , J . CHEM. EDUC.. SR.fi71 (19811. 14) Dsvmp
