A Doctorate Program for College Chemistry Teachers
W h a t type of education is best suited for the training of college chemistry teachers? For years i t has been assumed that the traditional Ph.D. in chemistry is the best possible background for a college chemistry teacher regardless of whom he is going to teach. The writer takes exception to this assumption and proposes that a new Ph.D. program be developed to train teacher-scholars rather than research-scholarsthat is, to develop creative individuals to whom teaching would come first and research second. The traditional program for a Ph.D. in chemistry is designed primarily to train the research-scholar and hence depends on a high degree of specialization. The writer does not wish to imply that this is had; there is a tremendous demand for this type of individual in our society. However, the writer also believes that there is an ever-increasing need for the broadly trained teacher-scholar. This need is most pressing a t the freshman-sophomorc level in our colleges and universities. A recent editorial in Chemical and Engineering News states without qualification that superior teaching in the early college years is being ncglectedl. If such neglect does in fact exist, it must he due, in large degrce, to the fact that no teachers are a t present specifically trained to handle college freshman and sophomorc work. Yet a t every other level special training is required. Elementary and secondary school teachers must fulfill rigid requirements, while teachers of upper undergraduate and graduate courses in college require the traditional Ph.D., which is specifically geared to such teaching. Few teachers, however, are oriented to, and none is particularly trained to handle the lower undergraduate work. Yet teaching at the college freshman-sophomore level certainly offers a challenge unlike that offered a t any other level of the education system. At the secondary level a teacher normally works with fewer than thirty students at a time. Hc teaches a complete course by himself, integrating the iaboratory and theory portion of the subject matter. The professor of the general chemistry course in college, however, is expected to deal with hundreds of students at a time. He must correlate the instruction of dozens of teaching assistants in laboratory and discussion sections with his own efforts. The contrast between teaching a t the freshmansophomore level and the upper undergraduate and graduate levels is equally marked. The professors teaching a t the higher levels are working with highly selected and motivated student.; who will probably learn regardless of the teaching s l d s of the professor. Howcvcr, a t the freshman-sophomore level, the motivation 'KENYON, RICH.\RD L.,Chem. Eng.Nelus, 43,7 (May 31,1!)65).
provocative opinion of the students is a t a much lower level, and learning is in direct proportion to the tcaching s l d of the professor. If we are honest, we must recognize that lower-level undergraduate instruction is to a large degree a stepchild of the university research program. I n most cases (by no means all),professors teaching freshman chemistry fall into one of the following categories: (1) An individual who succeeded in getting a Ph.D., but did not distinguish himself while doing it.. Hence, he is not qualified to teach at a. major university but sonietimes secures a teaehing positiun a t a n rmdergreduete institotion. Often the research activities of this individual slop after he leaves graduate school. (2) An individual who does distinguish himself as a researcher and secures a position at a major university. But in order to avail himself of the advantages of the research center, he n u s t agree to teach huge numbers of freshmen or sophomores. Some professors agree t,o this only to seeitre the posilion. h s soon as their seniority will permit, mnny professors in this category seek to evade the frostretiotrs of teaehing freshman chemistry, for which they are not prepared by trsining, and ask to teach upper division courses. (3) An individual who docides early in his career that he wishes to teach a t 1,he freshman and sophomore level but finds that in order to seewe a position he must earn a traditional Ph.D. This he does, hut he findr this training is not particularly applicable to his vocational objective. If he accepts 8. position at an undergradnate institntion, his own lack of interest phis the lack of facilities and inspiration urr the part af the institution lead to the complete abandonment of his research. Creative teaehing is not encomaged, nor has he been redly well trained for it, so he ceases eutirely to be a creative individual. If he accepts a position a t a major nniversity, pl.essures force him to continue his roseuch career, but oilen lead to work not of real vahie beeanso of lack of interest, while again, leaching is slighted. (4) An individual who is interested in both teaehing and reseawh, hay the qualities to perform admirably in both, and eslablishes an ontstanding career in both areas.
Unfortunately, the number of people in category four is much too small. The Ph.D. program proposed here is directed toward the individuals in group three. The objective of this program is to provide training that is applicable to the vocational goal of tcaching and to establish a background in a broad area that will make it possible for the teacher to continue to he a creative individual in a meaningful way after leaving graduate school. How should the existing program he modificd in order to better meet this ohjective? The writer considers the specialization, which has advanced so swiftly in the last several decades, as detrimental to the training of teacher-scholars, This specialization has been the result of the rapid cxpnnsiou in all ficlds, while the capacity of individuals remains limited. Thus the Ph.D. holders lecturing in freshman chemistry today are often much more specialized than those of several decades aro and often are less interested and less able in teaching the broad beginning courses. The demands of specidizatiou often lead to grievous ignorance in Volume 46, Number 3, March 1969
/
163
other areas. One of the objectives of the program proposed here is to counter these disadvantages of specialization. Of all the tasks the general chemistry professor must face, one of the most difficult is learning how to teach effectively the students who are majoring in nonscience areas. These students, who will be leaders in government, business, and intellectual pursuits, must understand the role that chemistry and other sciences play in the lives of the average citizen. It is hoped that course requirements in areas outside of science, togcther with an interdiscipline thesis, will help the professor trained under this new program to succeed in this task. The candidate should be permitted to elect a thesis in experimental chemistry or in an interdiscipline area such as one of the following: (a) Experimentation in the teaching of chemistry (b) History of ohemistry (c) A problem concerned with chemistry and some area nubside the field of natural science.
However, the writer wishes to emphasize that the interdiscipline nature of this degree should not be looked upon iizevely as a pedagogical dcvicc for training teachers. The candidate under this program would be expected to make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge. Work in the interdisciplimry areas can be extremely exciting and as much at the frontiers of the knowledge as the research for a traditional P h D . in chemistry. Thc following criteria in addition to those ordinarily applied should he considered in the choice of the research project: (a) Will the writing of the dissertation help the candidate to perform more effectivelyass teacher? (b) Will the dissertation contribut,e to t,he advancement of the teaching of chemistry? (c) Will the dinsortst,ion help train t,he candidate in an area in which he can rornain prodnctive if he leaves the itniversity research centor?
It has always seemed to the writer that the great schism between professors of education and professors of chemistry is a serious error which has led to strict and absolute division of responsibilities in chemical education, t,he education professor controlling the edncation of the secondary chemistry teacher, and the chemistry professor controlling the education of t,he college chemist,ry teacher. In recent years the need for a much more intensive training in chemistry for high school teachers has been recognized, and efforts have been madc to correct this deficiency. Recent demonstrations and othcr evidences of student unrest on major campuses has indicated that not enough collegc professors are aware of and under%MPEY,
164
/
JOHN It., J. CIXEM. EDUC., 39, 585 (1962).
Journal of Chemical Education
stand the principle of the learning process and adolescent psychology. The writer believes that formal training in these areas should be required. Since professors of education often proliferate courses, it is recommended by the writer that a member of the chemistry department (or some other department of the college of arts and sciences) be in charge of this instruction, and that he use outside talent as he sees fit. Since chemistry should be seen in perspective and understood in its historical as well as in its modern aspect,^, some course workin the history and philosophy of science should be required of the prospective chemistry teacher-scholar. Finally, the writer believes a closely supervised internship in teaching should be required. This requirement needs no defense. I t is merely a belated acceptance in college teaching of a need that has long been recognized in professions such as secondary education, medicine, and law. One of the reasons often put forth for expecting professors to he active in research is the belief that only the creative person can be an effective teacher. Yet many professors teaching general chemistry arc not productive in research leading to publications. Sampey has shown that the productivity of chemistry professors at the typical undergraduate institution in research leading to publication is almost nil2. In order to determine the productivity of professors teaching general chemistry in Ph.D. granting institutions, recent catalogs were surveyed for names of professors listed as teaching general chemistry. Unfortunately, many universities do not list the professors for general chemistry. However, 180 professors teaching general chemistry were identified a t 35 different universities, including many of the top universities in t,he country. Of this group, 81 were either not list,ed in the Directory of Graduate Research, or if listed, they were not credited with any publications. Hence, it seems reasonably clear that in many cases the traditional Ph.D. program fails in training creative chemistry teachers. It is the conviction of the writer that if thc Ph.D. program is more closely related to the vocational goals of the candidate, a large proportion of the teachers trained will continue to be creative after leaving the doctorate-granting institution. Thc academic community is defensive about the traditional Ph.D.; however, it appears to the writer that the universities which have the courage and resources to offer and vigorously support doctoral programs for the training of college teachers will perform a great service for society as well as establish themselves as leaders in a new and important academic area.
B. R. Siebring University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, 53201
