Whither Laboratory lmtruction
The classicallv held opinion that instruction in the lahoratory arts isan important vumponent of chemistry teaching is an intuitive position of most practicing chemists. That which is taken for granted by most of us was formalized in 1895 in the report of the Nightingale Committee, which consisted of 12 members-six from high schools and six from colleges. One of the nine special committees reporting to the full Nightingale Committee was concerned with chemistry instruction. T h e Special Committee concluded that: The study of chemistry is a valuable constituent.. . on account (1) of the trainingn in observation in eeneral and correct induction from ~. drrervatim which it affords, and t2r of r h r flrar-hnnd rnformation which it gives alwut well known rndterials, rhe princrplrr uf their manufacture, and their properties, as the result of personal observation. ~~
~
~
~~
T h e report continues: Without lat~mrorywork s c h d chemistry is wholly valueless fnr the 1,urpmes jnsr mentimed . . .The wurk uutlmed wtll demnnd nt least 2110hours'work: ahour half the time, in two-huurpwiods,ahuuld be spent in the laboratory. Under the major section entitled "Method of Teaching" the report concludes: The experiments must be performed by each pupil individually. Each pupil must record his observations and the interpretation of them in a notebook. His work should he continuously supervised and his records freouentlv .. examined hv the teacher. Most .DUD^^ . will tend to tall inw merely mrehnn~rnlperformnnce dasuigncd work 'lb combat rhis is rhe must dtfficult task uf the teacher u i rlwn~istrs.Each rxpcrmenr is a questlun put 10 nature, and forethought and rare arr necessary in putting the question, and study and reflection in interpreting the answer. Strenuous effort is required to make the pupil realize this. ~~
~
~~.~~
This is obviously a statement of the belief that chemistry is an experimental science and much is to be gained, intellectually and physically, by introducing students to the experimental part of chemistry. Many of us would still subscribe to the thesis set forth by the Special Committee on Chemistry, although a few of our colleagues would argue to the contrary for professional reasons.. es~eciallv in the light . - of recent successes of quantum chemistry where, for example, i t can he shown to be more cost effective to estahlish the nature of the transition state by calculation in some reactions than it is to perform the necessary experiments to determine the same information. True, these approaches are in their infancies, hut with experience and increased confidence they may ultimately prevail. We would all like to believe that there will always he things for chemists to do in the laboratory that cannot he done elsewhere, and we persist in trying to offer such experiences. Should chemists reach the point where they believe that most of the present lahoratory instruction for chemistry majors is no longer necessary, those who value chemistry as a tool for
their discipline will still reauire us to provide comnetent lahnratory instruction. In many institutions, various combinations of ~ d m i n i s t m tive, logistic, and economic factors have dictated the demise of laboratory instruction for non-science majors-a passing which is decried by many perceptive teachers. Similar pressures are being felt on the laboratory courses designed for science majors. We may he near the time where hard judgments must be made concerning who among the science majors will he p~rmittedw enroll in Iahornt(nv courses. The cost of chemicals. kspecially those derked from pctroletm p r w ucts, has escalotkl to the p&t where there is seriouscok.rn over the qudlttv of the offerings in many formal instructional laboratories. Much of modern chemistry involves a knowledge of instrumentation, another a r m where COSLS arc rapidly outrunninr the nldits of even the larerr s c h w l to ~rovideior them. he specter of OSHA-type regulations, which were originallv . written for industrial laboratories. beine blindlv applied to laboratories designed for instructional purposes is disconcertine. One could easilv imagine several scenarios played out in numerous locales, perhaps accidentally, which would lead to maior changes in the vhilosoohv " . . of laboratorv instruction in chemistry. Before such pressures reach the point where we might yield because we are unprepared to respond, i t would appear prudent to define a hard core of laboratory instruction bevond which we cannot vield. Is it even necessarv for the studenr who is to use his chemical knowledge wtthin the next two gen(wAnns'? We oughr to be able to decide what part ufthe lahcrratory experience is crucial ru our proiessiun: thedevelopment of manipulative expertiscand/t~rthe thoueht processes associated with "the put to nature." ~ 6 a t today's student generally experiences is some (often not well thought-out) combination of these positions; the decision to use a given experiment in a laboratory course is often guided by expediency rather than pedagogy. There have been attempts to accommodate to escalating costs of student experimentation by adapting or altering more or less conventional experiments so that markedly smaller amounts, or less expensive substitutes that will perform equally well, are employed. Alternative techniques have been developed for providing some of the experiences normally obtained in a laboratory. Thus, well-thought-out lecture demonstrations can he used to stress observational skills. and some interactive computer simulations have been developed which successfullv expose students to the nuances of laboratory-oriented decision-making processes. The pages of this JOURNAL are available for descriptions of innovative laboratory programs which respond to the pressures described here as well as to individual experiments which give students important and meaningful laboratory experiences under the present constraints and those anticipated for the future. Such should be shared by all interested JJL parties.
Volume 56, Number 9, September 1979 1 561
