edited by JOHN W.MOORE Eastern Mlchlgan Un~verslty,Yps~lant!.MI 48197
Powwow: The Future of Microcomputers in Chemical Education John W. Moore and Elizabeth A. Moore Eastern Michigan University. Ypsilanti, MI 48197 J. J. Lagowskl
University of Texas at Austin, Austin. TX 78712 Approximately 40 expert chemistry educators, research chemists, computer programmers, learning experts, and representatives of computer hardware and software companies converged on Eastern Michigan University the weekend of May 18-20.1984 to participate in a meeting with the ohiective of examining and evaluating the current status of computer use in chemistry education and to consider appropriate directions for future developments involving computers In the chemistry curriculum. B> almost any measuie the meeting was a success: there was a constant exchange of ideas and much intellectual ferment; many who had not been intimately involved in computer use became much more familiar with what can and might he done; programmers were challenged by nonprogrammers to develop new approaches to old prohlems; and the sponsoring organization, Project SERAPHIM, was encouraged to expand its operations in new and exciting directions. Organlzation of the Powwow
The fundamental idea on which the meeting was hased was that both programmers and nonprogrammers could henefit from an intensive period of close interaction. All members of hoth classes were expected and encouraged t o participate in discussions and outline exemplary materials. We centered the meeting around working groups of three to five persons so that there could be synergistic interactions among chemists, programmers, learning theorists, and others. Each group was assigned a relatively broad area for discussion and asked to indicate new directions in which programmers of computerhased materials might profitably move. The working groups were also asked to choose a single topic for further discussion and development and to provide, by the end of the Powwow, a detailed plan for addressing that topic. T o make the most of the time svent a t Eastern Michiean University each attendee was asded to indicate in advance which of a series of general. and later more s~ecifictonics he or she war most interested in working on during the I'owwow. The information collected orovidrd the basis for assianrnent of each individual to a smail group that had similar interests and for deciding- on the topic that moup. was charged - t o explore further. The meeting itself was organized around three main activities: general presentations or demonstrations, small group discussions, and reports by the small groups to the entire Powwow. Initially several experts were asked to make presentations t o the entire group with the aim of bringing everyone to a minimum awareness of the many ways in which computers might he used in the chemistry curriculum. The
small group discussions had two main purposes: fust, t o identifv soecific t o ~ i c sfor which develo~mentof comouter relatedtedmaterials would be useful and prkuctive and, second, t o consider carefullv a sinele t o ~ i and c develon an outline or other concrete expr&ionto indicate how thattopic could he addressed. Revorb of small e r o u ~to s the Powwow as a whole were designed to hring to G a r ihe entire group's collective wisdom and to inform everyone about what the other . moups . were doing. Presentations and Dlscusslons
Scott Owen (Atlanta University) described recent and projected developments in microcomputer hardware and their implications regarding the kinds and complexity of -programs that we could expectto see in the next two or three years. Rapid decreases in the cost of microcomputer memory and other hardware combined with raoid increases in the Dower of individual microprocessors and'the trend towaid mktiple Drocessors mean that what are now considered comnlex and time-consuming tasks will soon be feasible for microc~mputers and hence for students to do. Examples are programs Owen has written for molecular modelling and for CNDO molecular to orbital calculations. Owen argued for a modular amroach .. programming-writing smalisections of computer code that can he used to carry out the same function in many different programs. With more powerful hardware these program modules could be done in a high-level language and could he readily adapted to new computers as they appear on the market. His opinions on these topics are described in more detail in a recent Computer Series article.' Paul Groves (South Pasadena Senior High School) described his experience in teaching high school chemistry students hoth with and without microcomputers. He emnhasized that students have in their minds certain constructs b d images that they hring to hear on any new prohlem they face. Unfortunately these constructs are often inappropriate or in need of modification, and Groves sees the computer as an excellent tool for helping students hring their mental apparatus closer to that used by experienced chemists. He also emphasized that students should he in control of the computer, not the computer in control of the student, and he indicated that there is some henefit (pedagogical as well as economic) in having several students use a single microcomputer a t one time. Groves demonstrated two programs that illustrated these points: in one students could move through ~
' Owen, G. Scott, J. CHEM.EDUC.., 61,440 (1984). Volume 61 Number 11 November 1984
1003
Table 1.
Poster-Session Presentations
Name
Tnnir
R. Aiberly J. Beii P. Cauchon J. Copes R. Cornelius J. Geider S. Owen P. Schatz P. Signeii A. Smith
Thermcdynamics and Equiiibrium Computer-Assisted Blackboard DevelopingAnalytic Reasoning W~rdpr~ce~sing/Spreadsheet/Database Probiem-Solving Program for General Chemistry Gas Laws and Equiiibrium Molecular Modeling; MO Calculations Computer Programs for Spectroscopy Scientific Text Processing State-of-the-Art User Interface Spreadsheet and Equation Solver Convenient Answer Judging for CAI
simulated rooms that contained electronic components, try out each device, and see how it worked; in the &her several students were given the same problem (but with different data for each) and no student was allowed to proceed until all had successfully solved the problem. The latter approach stimulates both cooperative and competitive behavior on the part of the students and illustrates a social aspect that is often missing in our considerations of cornput&-related instruction. Bill Butler (Universitv of Michiean) orovided his im~ression of what cornput& that waidesi'gned specificaliy for teaching chemistry might look like. Although Butler's projections were more futuristic than Owen's, they still did not involve hardware that could not reasonably be expected to be available within the next decade or so-in fact some of the things he described are already familiar to denizens of the video-game arcades. Butler suggested that his ideal computer ought to be able to store large databases, to interact with all five senses, to interpret a variety of student inputs, and to anticipate potential student responses so that branching r provided an outlink wouldappe& to be immediate;~ u i e also of one area, crystal structure and symmetry, in which such a computer could be u ~ e deffectively. Following theseoral presentations there wasa pnster session a t which llmemhers of the Powwow demonstrated and dis-
a
Table 2. General Topic
cussed oroerams that were of eeneral interest or exemolarv of som;ne& way of approaching computer use in the ;hemistw curriculum. These oresentations are brieflv summarized in Table 1. Small Group Dlscussions
The small groups were asked to begin by listing specific topics or items that fell within each group's purview and to attempt to indicate whether adequate computer-related materials were currently available for that topic. Membership general areas for discussion in the groups and their assigned . . are eiven in Tahle 2. ~ i next e morning each p u p reported back to the Powwow as a whole to descr~beits list of topics for discussion and to determine whether there were materials available that the small eroun was unaware of. There was livelv discussion of each lGt of'topics, and many new ideas were h;ought forward. Then each mouo. narrowed its focus to a sinele tonic for more detailed development. The topics chosen are also listed in Tahle 2, and a brief overview i f each one is provided below. Group 1 chose to devote its attention to the problem of chemical equilibrium in the reaction of nitrogen and hydrogen to form ammonia. With a computer to solve the eauations that arise in this problem a much broader explorationean he made of the dependence of the extent of reaction on temperature, pressure,-and amount of reactants. In fact some-counter: intuitive results can be obtained. For example, if the pressure remains constant and extent of reaction x is plotted against t~l) (n~dntotsil)a maximum in x is found at ( n ~ ~ l n ~= ~0.5. Above this value x decreases as the amount of Nz present increases. In other words, adding Nz to an equilibrium mixture of Nz,Hz,and NH3 at constant pressure causes some ammonia to dissociate, an apparent contradiction of LeChatelier's Princiole. A careful consideration of the problem reveals that there i's no such problem, hut the mental*mrestcaused by the apparent contradiction of an acceoted law can be used to orod &dents into learning more abbut equilibrium in Indeed it prodded some of us into thinking more carefully about the ammonia synthesis equilibrium, and even the instigator of the idea for this program was not sure how certain ~~~
~
~
- .
Membership and Topics for Working Groups
Specific Topic
Members
Thermodynamics and Equilibrium
Chemicai Equilibrium in the Ammonia Synthesis
Bonding and Structure
Bohr Atom Tutwiai; Walk Thru a Crystal; Rotational SPeCtrosCoP~of Heteronuclear Olatomic~
introductory Chemistry
Q ~ ~ i i t a t i and v e Quantitative Prediction of Chemicai Reactivity
Derek Davenport, Purdue U. (reporter); Jane Copes, invergrove HStS. MN (reporter); Paui Oroves. South Pasadena Senior H.S.; David Robson. Tawsan H.S.. MD
insvument Simulations
Three Models f w inshument Simulations
Douglas Bond, Riverside C. C. (reporter); Paui Schatz, U. of Wisconsin. Madison; Frank Senie. Jr.. Virginia Mil. inst.; Stanley Smith. U. of Illinois
Laboratory Applications
SERAPHIM Clearinghouse far information on laboratory interfacing
Wliltam Bder. L of Mochqm (reponsrl. Robert Roe, Jr Hoghiand Par, n S TX, A Ian Sm ~h Drexe ~n vers fy (recorder) Rodney Schrelner U of Wooconsln. Madmn
Adaptation of Commercial, GeneraiPur~ose Sdtware
Organization of CHYMNET' a Netwwk ConferenclngSystem for Chemistry Education
Guidelines f w Gaod Educational Computing
Software Authors' Workshop
Peter Signeii, Mich. State U.(reporter): David Brooks, U. of Nebraska; J. J. Lagowski. U. of Texas (reporter); Mary Ann Palma. Consultant, Lockhead/Diaiag; Dale Wolfgram. Grand Bianc H.S.. MI David Daniel. Ed. Div., ACS (reporter); Paui Cauchan. Canterbury Schwi, CT: Richard Cornelius, Wichita State U.; Dorothy Deringer. Atari. inc.: Thomas Sears. COMPress. Inc.
Means f a Exploring Science via Computer
KC? Discoverer, a Program I w Exploring me Roperties 01 Pure Sbbstances
1004
Journal of Chemical Education
Wiiiiam Child, Carleton College (reporter); Robert Aiberly, MiT (reporter); W. T. Lippincon. U. of Arizona; John Geide. Oklahoma State U. Wiiiiam Coleman, Weilesiey Coil. (reporter); John Alexander. U, of Cincinnati: Glenn Crosby. Washington State U.; G. Scon Owen, Atlanta University
.
T. Y. Susskind, Oakland 6. C.. Mi (recorder);Jerry A. Beii.
Simmons College (reporter); James V. DeRose, Springfield. PA; J. Dudley Herron. Purdue U.; Eiizabelh A. Moore. Eastern Mich. U.; John W. Moore, Eastern Mich. U.
'(0861) L69 'LS "%la3' W H 3 T "W '9 'MOllW z
suo!laear iaqlaqm Bu!la!pard M sraqumu uoy?p!xo pue says -doid aseq-p!ae j o aapalmouq hldde o l paqse aq p p o m s w a p -nls 'hlleu!.a 'poqlaru ;ne!idoidde w j o uo!lea
