Psychological Proofs Unnecessary To the Editoc We older people who taught chemistry in the by-gone years have a tendencv to look hack and comDare how i t was when we did it to how it is now when other'who are younger are doing it. These remarks arc*promprcd by my own reminiscences while reading (and enjoying) "The 'Chemical Founrain'.' t~ Ren-Zvi and Silherstein ITHIS .lOlJnxA1., 58,68-9 (1981)l. Ben-Zvi and Silherstein duplicate almost exactly my own contributions in "Practice in Thinking," [THIS JOURNAL, 34, 238-9 (1957) and 37, 105-6 (1960)l except that they cite a British psychological study to "prove" that good teaching properly exploits students' natural curiosity. In my day, we didn't think such "proofs" were necessary. I t was obvious to US. My point in this mild criticism is simply that I like to think
624
Journal of Chemical Education
of THIS JOURNALas a publication pertaining t o chemical education (emphasis deliberate), I t is not necessary that authors cite the source of the atomic theory, or of, say, the first law, every time these concepts are addressed in an article. Neither should i t he necessarv to buttress an alreadv fine rontrihurioti to r h ~ m i e n educntion l (e\.en when it is u k d i s ruverv of the wheel) bv citations to ohvious. known befwehand,-results of work &psychology. Said differently, I'm getting a bit bored by invocations of psychological findings as support for what is easily seen to be gwd, solid chemical education contributions. If other readers feel the same, or opposite, I hope they will make their views known, too.
-
Jav A. Youna Chemica. Consultant 12916 A enon b n e
Silver Spring. MD 20904
