Patterns in Undergraduate Courses
It is reported that for generations undergraduate chemistry courses were taught as exercises in the transmission and assimilation of information with attempts a t classification and correlation of facts. Theories, when introduced, were presented most often as qualitative explanations of phenomena with little or no quantitative implications, virtually no verification, and frequently without reference to either their limitations or the degree to which they had been oversimplified by the instructor. Some good students emerged from such courses unable to distinguish fact from theory, convention from concept, and firmly believing that the body of knowledge they had gained would endure for all time. While excursions into the history of chemistry were essential parts of most of these courses, the student seldom, if ever, gained any insight into the thinking of the scientists involved, nor did he share in any significant way in the excitement of discovery that must have fired the spirit of these investigators. Encouragement of student creativity was a t best an extracurricular activity. Most often the premium was placed on encyclopedic recall rather than on reasoned response. Yet these courses stirred large numbers of students, inspired many excellent minds to elect chemistry as a career, and so influenced other embryo scientists that the current effortin research in several sister sciencesnotably the biological sciences, geology, and astronomy -is strongly chemical in character. Modern undergraduate courses, presumably in an effort to benefit from past inadequacies and in response to an unprecedented increase in chemical knowledge, emphasize the principles of chemistry with an ever-increasing penetration into the quantitative aspects of current theory. Often a conscious effort is made to take the student to the very frontier of knowledge and to let him share in the struggle to advance it. In modern courses the premium is on the reasoned response, the application of principles, the modification of the model, the precedent-shattering idea. Beneath this pedagogy of stimulated mental acuity lie what are regarded by some teachers as three unspoken articles of faith. Simply summarized these are: The belief that since the body of chemical knowledge is too vast for anyone to assimilate, reasonable competence is possible only through a thorough understanding of principles supplemented by the ability and experience to use these principles as an aid to the recall of facts and as a predictor of chemical behavior.
editorially speaking The idea that there is an ethical or aesthetic obligation to present what is known in as pure a form as possible. The conviction that in the final analysis chemistry is more a dynamic, evolving, intellectual adventure than an accumulated, precedent-hound body of knowledge. Few would quarrel with these beliefs. Many would be pleased to know that the attitudes they spawn in instructors are transmitted to students and in many cases become the most lasting intellectual acquisition the student takes from the course. Beyond doubt the long term benefits of such acquisitions will far outweigh their disadvantages. However, some of the disadvantages may be troublesome. Foremost among these is an implication apparently being made by increasing numbers of students, though certainly not intended by their instructors, that extraordinary mental agility alone is needed for success in science. The corollary to this is that thorough knowledge of the subject is neither necessary nor is it likely to be rewarding. The outward manifestation of this attitude is a disdain for factual knowledge among students with much self-coddence and a search for careers in other areas for many others. The disdain for factual knowledge, while disconcerting, hopefully can he moderated with added maturity. However, the migration of good potential science students to nonscience careers may present serious manpower problems. Numerous studies, including one showing that in a sample of science-oriented National Merit Scholars over half changed from science to nonscience careers after entering college, testify to the serious nature of the migration from science. While this migration is not restricted to chemistry and undoubtedly has causes other than those related to course content and quality, it is difficult to believe that students would abandon an initial interest if the courses offered the opportunity and challenge they expect. In the light of apparent inadequacies in modern undergraduate courses, and reflecting back to some of the more successful features of traditional courses, we wonder if the blend of rigorous theory and factual chemistry in modern courses hasn't become just a little too rich in the former to be compatible with the maturity and experience of undergraduates. WTL Volume 44, Number 10, October 1967
/
553
