Knowle&e Versus Wisdom
This issue of the JOURNAL contains the summary of a symposium held a t Las Vegas in August, 1980, on teaching inorganic chemistry a t the college level. The subject of the symposium contains the essence of a problem facing all chemistry teachers: "What Should be Left in and What Should be Left Out." Most chemistry teachers recognize that it is impossible to teach more than a smattering of what is known about the subject of chemistry in a mere four years. A similar position can be taken regarding any given course, as is illustrated by the dilemma facing our inorganic colleagues. Facts are accumulatiue a t what has been described as an exponential rate. Every bit of knowledge--our acquaintance with facts-may prove useful in some situation, a t some time, or in some place. Teachers feel compelled to transfer the newest facts to students as earlv. as possible in their careers. . I t is, after all, important to keep our courses current. Every chemistry teacher complains that the time allotted for his or her favorite subject is grossly inadequate. There appears to be barely enough time for adequate coverage; the students feel everything must be remembered forever. Students are homharded daily for four years with new knowledge, but seldom are thev eiven an oon6rtunitv to acauire wisdom-the ahilitv to deais&ndly anb'sagacio;sly with facts. A basic problem in chemical education today, for both students and instructors, is that we are attempting to predict the form and techniques of future chemical practice and to teach these to a new generation of chemists. If one considers the varietv of uses to which the chemistrv we teach will be put-by intelligent citizens, teachers, -and professional chemists-it is obvious that a very large fraction of what is learned with much effort will never be used or he of use. Even more disturbing is the realization that n rmrt of what we teach will ultimatelybe shown to he wrong, and a larger part will soon be obsolete. T o further compound the problem, we as teachers do not know which narts of our subiect are likelv to develop this way. I t is. o e r h a ~ sunderstandable . that chemists are Dreoccupied biiactuai !&owledge. Facts are critical to chemiits. F a d s helo develoo the basis for theorv and ultimatelv establishits validity. W; do not expect theories to remain immutable, but
-
1 T.
S. Eliot
good (experimentally correct) fads will not change with time. Although good facts are to be cherished, they can have a mesmerizing effect on both the teacher and the student. The dilemma is obvious. There are so many good facts that i t is foolish to attempt to memorize them a& Most really good theories which could be useful in correlating facts are too comolex for the immature mind. So. what do we teach? Our courses should strive to establish a serviceable foundation in chemistw as well as codevelor)imoonant inwllecrual characteristics in'the student. Since students will not learn all they will use or need in college, they should learn how to learn. They need to know how to get further information on a given subiect, and thev need to recognize when thev need it. The vast resources of the literature can meet such-needs of intellectually mature minds. Formal courses describing the mechanics of library searchmg are often claimed to meet these needs. Although the mechanics of library searching are important in the acquisition of knowledge, they are not the critical part. Students need to know the importance of past exoeriences. whether thev be positive or neeative. and how these fit in& our present statk of knowledge. hey should learn to welcome new ideas whether their own or someone else's. They should learn to he gently skeptical because history has shown us that manv plausable ideas Drove to he wrong. When they leave us, our students should have sufficient ugderstanding and wisdom to know what they know, when they really know, and, perhaps more importantly, to recognize when they don't know. Accepting - these as desirable goals, i t is apparent that the majority of our courses engage students a t the level of knowledge rather than wisdom. Perhaps it is true that each of the classical areas of chemistry requires that a very large fraction of time be devoted t o learning specific knowledge. Surely some duplication exists in curricula. Removal of such duplication might be the first step in making time available for developing wisdom. Cataloging the desired student characteristic?idesrribed above is the easier part of the solution to the ecneral uroblem. To solve the more difficult part is to describe-viable methods, or ways to develop viable methods, that can be emploved to encouraee .' the development of the desired student rhar~rteriatics. '.Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"' w e need t o search our souls to be able to decide with equanimity what should he left in and what should he left out: JJL
Volume 57, Number 11, November 1980 I 759
