Looking Back and Moving Ahead in Computer-Related Learning John W. Moore and Elizabeth A. Moore Eastern Michigan University. Ypsilanti, MI 48197 The Not-So-Good Old Days The recent honm in tahle-top microcomputers and in their instructional applications ohsrures the fact that computers have heen used in rhemistry teaching for more than half the lifespan of modem digital machines-20 years, at least. Some of us can recall the bad old days of Coursewriter, timesharing systems that were user-surly or more likely down, and teletv~ewritersthat clacked out no more than ten characters a second. We were originally attracted by computers, hard as thev were to use. because we had visions of what thev mieht do,rf only the proper way could he found to do it. ~ h a t ' w e wanted were tools that would help us teach (and help our students learn) chemistry more efficiently and effectively. We were motivated hv the rapid increase in chemical knowledge (Chemical ~ b i t r a c t Ghlished s its ten-millionth abstract in March 1984, for example), and the concomitant expansion in the material to he covered in nearly every chemistrv course. This, iuxtaposed with the seemine stasis in our ability to transmitinforkation, induce understanding, or otherwise prepare our students for careers and lives involving science, presented a rather dismal outlook for the future of chemical education. What was it that intrigued us about computers? For one thing they could calculate very rapidly and accurately, allowing teachers and students to obtain results from complex mathematical models almost instantaneously. For another they could handle large quantities of data, providing rapid access to information about students, test questions, or homework prohlems on specific topics, and data on chemical compounds. Computers were beginning to he used by whole classes of chemists. and i t seemed certain that students without some knowl'edge and experience with them would he at a disadvantage. Finally, and most importantly, computers were interactive devices, hut unlike humans they had infinite patience. It apwared that some of our human ex~ertisemieht be programmed into them for students to interact with and learn from. We were intrigued hy the possibility of using computers to incorporate into our teaching this bit of Chinese wisdom: ~
~
Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand. Computers appeared to he capable of becoming excellent tools-for teacGng chemistry, a i d somk of us, t h r k g h blind optimism or sheer stuviditv, got involved with them a t an . early stage. This paper was presented at the Symposium on State-of-theArtfor Chemical Educators: Chemical Education, at the 187th ACS National Meeting. St. Louis, MO, April 11. 1984.
The extent of this invdvement was evident as early as 1970 when the Fehruarv issue of THIS JOURNAT. was devoted entirely to compute;instruction. Topics included in these articles were: computer-su~plemented general chemistrv. .. . . oreanic .. chemistry, an4 physics1 rhemistry courses; digital roniputers in instrt~mentaltonand small, inexpensive (SHOO0 t o S;'O.OIX)) lahoratory computers; programmahle calculators; molecular animations; simulation and modeling; computerized grading and schwiuling; and stari.;ticnI ;tnaIysis of lahimtory data. The Fvlmuary 1970 issue of the . I ~ ~ ~ R N[mtained AI. a l
