Undergraduate Recen* Trends Chemistry Curricula
Introduction Revision of the undergraduate chemistry curriculum is no longer a pleasant indoor sport where the standard components, long defined as the content of undergraduate chemistry, are arranged and rearranged. At the present time, revision activities in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum are directed toward a redefinition of the scope of undergraduate chemistry training, toward a reformulation of the relationships between chemistry and related fields, and toward recasting with new materials and new concepts, and with the aid of new equipment, the pieces which make up the undergraduate chemistry training program Most chemistry teachers recognize a number of forces in operation in our chemical educational environment. They recognize the flood of new information appearing in the chemical literature, and the rapid development of complete new disciplines where once there was a borderline. They recognize the larger numbers of students beginning the study of collegelevel chemistry and the fact that many of these students are better prepared in terms of high school chemistry and mathematics. They recognize that more equipment, and more modern equipment is available for instructional use in undergraduate laboratories, and that with this equipment, some very sophisticatedexperiments can be moved from the graduate level to the undergraduate training program. Most teachers respond to these forces by making an effort to bring their students into contact with the frontiers of chemistry, and they make an effort to create for their students a sense of participation in the science. The revision of undergraduate chemistry curricula, in response to the operation of some of these forces, was apparent in the discussions a t the present symposium. A. K. Colter of the Carnegie Institute of Technology has devised a new sophomore-level course "Valence and Molecular Structure." R. J. Kokes of Johns Hopkins University reported on "Present
126
/
Journol o f Chemical Education
Chemistry Curriculum a t Johns Hopkins," and L. E. Strong, 0.T. Benfey, W. J. Stratten, and G. R. Bakker reported on the Earlham Chemistry curriculum, "Conceptualizing Chemistry." I n these papers one recognizes attempts to eliminate certain trivia and attempts to introduce more advanced or nontraditional topics into the freshman or sophomore chemistry courses. In the case of the Earlham curriculum one recognizes an attempt to recast the pieces which make up the chemistry program on the basis of a completely new idea. I n each of these papers a clear-cut interest in bringing the students into contact with the frontiers of the science was expressed. E. C. Fuller of Beloit College reporting on the combined First Year College Chemistry and Physics Course, presented a discussion on the reformulation of the relationships between chemistry and related fields. This kind of integrated study merits attention since the small college, where close communication among participating staff is possible, is an ideal setting for evaluation of this kind of curricula experimentation. R. C. Brasted of the University of Rlinnesota outlined some of the problems associated with the administration of the general chemistry course in a very large university. Here curriculum revision becomes a problem in logistics as they attempt to hring large numbers of students into contact with the frontiers of science presented by a large research-oriented teaching staff. At the all-day sessions where the symposium papers were presented, there was a considerable amount of spirited discussion. This discussion indicated that many teachers are involved in extensive revision of their courses and permitted identification of the outstanding recent trend in undergraduate chemistry curriculachange. 1. Carroll King, Symposium Chairman
Northwestern University, Evonston, Illinois
