IUPAC-Committee on the Teaching of Chemistry Report of USA National Representative
My eontacts and work with chemistry teachers from many countries as well as from many different colleges and universities in t h e USA since 1952 reveal widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo. Sincere effortsto effect change have been apparent during those twenty years. Yet a comparison of chemical education a t the university level in this country now and twenty years ago reveals that few fundamental changes have been widely adopted and practiced. Changes in secondary school chemistry have been more widesuread and more significant than those in hieher education. A major contributing factor to this state oflaffain was the massive infusion of Federal funds into nre-college science education through the National Science FoundatGn which began "after Sputnick." There was no similar encourage ment for curriculum development or teacher training in the sciences a t college level. Beginning early in the 1960's NSF did support "College Commissions" in the major fields of science and engineering. The Advisory Council on College Chemistry was initiated in 1963 with very modest NSF financing. The funding level increased significantly until NSF support was terminated in 1969. The extent to which ACDwas a factor for change in chemical education is a moot point. Perhaps AC1 influence on international chemical education surpassed its influence inside this country, although ACa funds could not he used d~rectlyfor international programs. The literature of ACa, international conferences spawned by ACa, and the international contacts of Councilors were significant factors influencing change in chemical education in foreign countries, especially developing countries. About the same time that the ACa was formed the IUPAC Committee on the Teaching of chemistry was established. US members of that committee were also ACI Councilors. Perhaps inadvertently, a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and effort developed between the IUPAC Committee, UNESCO's science teaching division, and ACI. The IUPAC Committee was a sponsor of the "International Conference on Education in Chemistry" held a t Snowmass-&&Aspen in 1970, The "International Symposium on University Chemical Education" held a t Frascati, Italy, in 1969 and the "Intemational Symposium on Chemical Education" held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1971. These meetings attracted large numbers and a wide variety of international chemists who have been able to influence the course of chemical education in their home countries. The meeting in Frascati provided the opportunity for an exchange of information about current chemistry programs in the 20 countries represented. At thattime i t was agreed that more detailed information on trends in chemical education should be collected and distributed. "Survey of Chemistry Teaching a t University Level,"' edited by Professors A. K. Holliday and R. Maskill of the University of Liverpool, provides a comparative assessment of universitylevel courses designed to educate chemists in 22 countries. Considering the scope of the objective and the fact that 22 individual chemists from as many countries contributed, the internal coherence of the report is impressive. This report was written and published with the sssistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orgsnization. Available from IUPAC Secretariat: Bank Court Chambers, 2-3 Pound Way, Cowley Center, Oxford OX4 3YF, U.K.
212pages, .W.00(£1.00)
Holliday and Maskill devote 36 pages to a summary of the individual reports. They do a very nice job of grouping by countries similar problems and trends as well as pointing out s i m c a n t differences between countries. Occasionally they toss in their own analysis which tends to add interest to what otherwise might be dull reporting. For example, when d i e cussing the fact that chemistry teachers around the world seem not to be aware of significant social changes impinging on the educational system and not "disposed to abandon the traditional pathways in favor of experiment," Holliday and Maskill state, "It is probable that teaching staffs have been appointed in many countries because of their academic prowess as measured by their research output. Though this has maintained a high standard of academic excellence in some institutions, it has also led to the unfortunate position in which teaching ability and innovation are often not fully appreciated or recognized as ladders to promotion." The analysis is not new but the supporting evidence from so many countries is. As I read the individual reports, I was impressed by the fact that developing countries are facing problems similar to those faced by "developing" universities in the US fifteen to twenty-five years ago. I refer to problems such as recruiting and holding quality faculty and securing funds for obtaining and maintaining modern instruments. The "developed" countries are facing problems similar to those now faced by major US Universities. These are problems such as how to provide socially relevant courses for both majors and nonmajors, how to exploit educational technology to meet the onslaught of increasing numbers of students and how the essence of chemistry can be maintained in curricula while joining in the movement toward interdisciplinary science. I noted a definite trend in the curricula of other "develoned" countries toward current traditional practices in the'US. Unitized courses.. neriodic and freauent written examinations . and opportunity to elect non-chemistry and non-science courses as part of a chemistry degree program are examples. An excellent staff report of "Survey of Chem~stryTeaching a t University Level" appeared in C & E N , July 10, 1972, page 25. However, in order to get the right flavor of chemistry curricula and teaching you should read the individual reports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, The Republic of South Africa. Sweden. U.K.. USA and USSR as they appear in "Survey of Chemistry ~ e k c h i n ga t University Level." I know many of the authors of the reports nersonally and am confident that they would welcome inquiries for more detail or comments about what they report. No individual and no country has the answer to the many questions and problems which plague chemical educators a t this point in time. However, through the interchange of ideas and information, additional progress can be made toward answers. Conferences and reports are useful vehicles in the effort to improve chemical education. Perhaps this IUPAC report will encourage better chemical education by better communication between chemists around the world.
William 6. Cook Colorado State University Fort Collins, 80521 Volume 49, Number 10, October 1972
/
661
