(
a
-
a
HIGH-SCHOOL CHEMISTRY
*
*
Progressive Chemistry Teaching Gone to Seed .G. WAKEHAM University of Colomdo, Boulder, Colorado
. A S ONE who has struggled for a quarter of a century mth ~lllteratehigh-school "graduates," I read with a sense of shuddering enlightenment Daniel Luzon Moms' frank, illuminating account of "Written reports in the high-school chemistry course" in the Putney School, Putney, Vermont.' If progressive chemistry teaching has reached this stage of development in conservative, rock-ribbed, Republican Vermont, what must it be like in daring, far-western, experimental Colorado? This "Report of the New England Association of Chemistry Teachers" explains some of my own more painful, personal observations. The Report contains much useful, if confessedly obvious, discussion of the most effective means of handling student-reports; but here and there are alarming admissions. For example: "The range of possible subjects is almost unlimited." "Excellent reports have come in which scarcely mentioned Lavoisier's experimental work but were concerned with the social implications of his life." "As time goes on the range of subjects branches out until they may eventually have little to do with chemistry. UsuaUy a slim thread of connection is required, but this is =metimes almost invisible." "If a student wants to write a report on migratory labor, as sometimes happens, the request is turned down." This seems deplorable, in view of the undoubted importance of the subject, and its complete lack of any chemical taint. As time goes on i t seems that the chemistry teacher must apologize, more and more, for introducing any definite into the course. ~h~ whole questionof supplementary reading and written thereupon needs careful reconsideration. It is now generally admitted that mostelemen. tary chemistry texts contain several times as much subject matter as the average student can hope to masterin the tirneavailable, some writers, e. g., ~ i - , explicitly admit this, but confess their into from putting, apparently, that they know into thejr texts,on the plea that the teacher can then pick out what he wants. Unfortunately, when the teacher has listed of the topics to be omitted, the progressively inoculated student is likely loinquire, "Why not leave out the rest of it? Whatss the use of a text, anyhow? ~ ~ us1 a1 few stories, and be satisfied that you know =mething about the subjed."
-
'See THISJOURNAL, 21, 465 (1944).
In a recent edition of his excellent text, Professor Smith, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), deplores the recently developed tradition of encouraging extensive "outside reading." There are several motives back of this practice. Many teachers, both progressive and conservative, feel that some faint interest can be smuggled into the course by means of outside reading. In a few cases, the curiosities of the more gifted, inquisitive students can be both stimulated and satisfied in this way. More commonly, however, the average student gets the fatal idea that he can dodge the mental effort of mastering a little definite chemistry by reading, in a desultory way, alot of interesting books about chemistry, and absorb, gradually and painlessly, enough information to pass the inevitable examinations. No form of educational self-deception is more treacherous. The happy student comes to his teacher with half a dozen "Reference" books which he has dug out of the library, from the recommended list a t the end of the chapter in his text. He beamingly asks if he won't be sure to "pass" if he reads them all-during the night before the exam. The tragedy is that the more earnest and devoted he is in stuffing his mind with irrelevant information, the more confused he will become. He will induce a degree of mental constipation so acute that when he sits down in the examination room his mind will refuse to move a t all. In this age of technology, chemistry students should understand that there is no royal road to proficiency in any serious branch of learning. While the efficient teacher will make his subject as fascinatingly interesting as he can, students must realize that in every productive science there is a fundamental skeleton of hard, solid fact, theory, and description that must be by inten% brutal memory work. Most American texts have gone to seed with details and illustrative subject matter. And when, added to this, long lists of outside reading are recommended, the obfuscation and confusion of the conscientious student become more confounded. Take up any eight-or-nine-hundred-page "elementary" text, examme i t carefully, and i t will be obvious that even a gifted student would have to devote his whole time for an academic year to mastering its contents and reporting on the "supplementary" reading matter recommended. In a practical age, we need concise, accurate texts, confined to the subject matter of the course. Reports based on "outside" reading should be sparingly used,
546
chiefly for the exceptional student, and the topics chosen should be, preferably, helpful to the mastery of chemistry, or a t least connected with chemistry. They should also be within the intelligent grasp of the stu-
dent. It is doubtful whether even the most brilliant high-school student could make a worth-while report on some of the subjects suggested in the Report which instigated these remarks, e. g., "quantum theory.''
