The Forum
m
Refocusing the General Chemistry Curriculum
Reforms in the General Chemistry Curriculum Lyman H. Rickard Millersville University, Millersville, PA 17551 Interest in reforms in the general chemistry curriculum is certainly not new but it has taken on a new intensity in recent vears and has been the subied of a number of recent reportiand symposia. I n response to this interest the ACS Division of Chemical Education formed the Task Force on -~ the Gcneral Chemistry Curriculum (see the accompanying tnblc for a list of Task Force members,. ACS leadcrship in the formation of the Task Force and current NSF funding give it a degree of national influence. The Task Force had its first organizational meeting a t the Boston ACS Meeting in 1990. During the past year the TaskForce has examined studies and reports and has discussed problems associated with the introductory chemistry curriculum. The Task Force is now ready to begin development of specific curricula. The Task Force held a symposium a t the 1991 ACS Meeting in Atlanta w drscr~beto the chem~strycommunity the work it has done and the directions in which it is now moving. The symposium also provided the opportunitv for input to thel'altk Force fkom thcchem~calcommunlry. This summary of the symposium will expand the audience for this forum. ~~~~
~~~
The Task Force Symposium The bezan with a discussion bv John Fort- -~ s m ~ o s i u m man of recent reports calling for reform in science education. These reports have focused much of their attention on the introductory courses in science and math. Fortman described the specific criticisms and recommendations that ~
~A
.
-
the reports made regarding introductory chemistry. A 1989 (1)and 1990 CPT (Committee on ProfesACS - - - - Statement -~~ sioml Zhiningi ~ e w s l e t t e r(2) both called for reform; to rekindle and sustain student interest. A 1990 AAAS Report (3)urged that science should be taught a s it is practiced. Introductory chemistry was criticized by a 1990 NSF Report (4) a s being too theoretical and abstract. A 1990 study by Shelia Tobias (5)cited the need for more cooperative interactive modes of learning. All of these reports recommended a n increased emphasis on the scope of chemistrv and linking concepts in chemistry to current topics, social issues acd the frontiers of science. Anna Harrison, a professor emeritus of chemistry a t Mount Holyoke College, chairs Sigma Xi's committee on science, mathematics, and engineering education. She dis(6, 8) that cussed two m u ~ t i d i s c i ~ l i n a r y ~ ix~instudies xi identified issues common to science, math, and engineering education. Harrison identified two conflicts in perception t h a t affect the teaching of introductorv chemistry. First is the conflict between the perceptions of science a s a bodv of knowledge versus science as a process of investigation. The secondconflict is between the perceptions of science education for the academicallv elite versus science education for a l l s t u d e n t s . ~ a r i i s o nemphasized t h e tremendous variation in backmounds and interests of current students. Entering college freshmen can be divided into two cateeories. What was termed the "15% cohort" consisted of &dents with both a background and ability in ~~
The Task Force on the General Chemistry Curriculum Task Force Members Stephen Berry University of Chicago George Bodner Purdue University Orville Chapman UCLA William (Flick) Coleman Weilesley College Arthur Ellis University of Wisconsin at Madison John Fortman Wright State University Ron Gillespie McMaster University
Stephen Hawkes Oregon State University Dudley Herschbach Harvard University Herbert Kaesz UCLA Joseph Lagowski University of Texas at Austin Ram Lamba Inter American University of Puerto Rico David Maclnnes Guilford College Patricia Metz Texas Tech University Jerry Mohrig Carieton College
Karen Morse Utah State University Lyman Rickard Millersville University Ethel Schuitz National Science Foundation James Spencer, Task Force Chair Franklin & Marshall College Jeffrey Steinfeid Massachusetts Institute of Technology Judith Strong Moorhead State University Tamar (Uni) Susskind Oakland Community College Hessy Taft Educational Testing Sewice
Task Force Resource Group Theodore Brown University of Illinois Ernest Eliel University of North Carolina Clark Fields University of Northern Colorado Baird Lloyd Emory and Henry College Joseph Morse Utah State University Alan Pribula Towson State University
Volume 69 Number 3 March 1992
175
science and mathematics and an interest in the natural sciences. mathematics or eneineerine. Remainine students were designated as the%% colhort." The Zgnificant finding was that onlv half of t h ~ ' ' l 5cohort" ~ graduated with iegrees in sciekx, math, or engineeringwhile none of the "85%cohort" maduated with demees in these areas. This means t h a t m a n y students cGange majors away from science and math but very few students chance to these majors even though manyof them are capable, highly motivated students. Harrison argues that part of the reason for this exodus from science and math lies in the introductory courses. She suggests the solution to this problem lies in creating an environment where faculty can "use their creative talents and experience in experimenting and developing new courses and programs". A number of barriers, real and perceived, exist that inhibit the reforms that have been suggested for introductow chemistw. These barriers. termed "tvrannies" bv William (Flick) 6oleman, include tradition or inertia, sich as a deoartment's concern for coveraee of all the traditional topi&. Coverage of material to prepare students for future courses serves as a barrier to chanee. Coleman argues that textbooks are more of a perceived than a rear barrier. Other barriers that inhibit reforms include external examinations and program accrediting agencies. However, external examinations such as the MCAT are changing. Coleman points out that the only factual chemistry needed for the current MCAT is acidmase chemistry. All other information is contained in the exam itself. The exam does require the student to think like a scientist. One of the accrediting agencies often included in the list of barriers to chanee in introductorv chemistrv is CPT. Karen Morse, ameGber of CPT, addressed this issue, stating "The primary objective of CPT is to help improve the quality ofchemical education." This is accomplished by the development of guidelines for high quality programs, the evaluation of programs, maintaining records on undermaduate promams and collecting information and report;ng on trends~deve~o~ments and-problems in chemical education. It is this Inst function that led to a miniconference in January 1990 where concerns and rewmmendations concerning introductory chemistry were discussed and later reported in the CPT Newsletter (2).However, even with its concerns about the introductory course, CPT evaluates programs as a whole not individual courses within the program. When evaluating programs the introductory course is of interest onlv to the extent that it is used bv a department to satisfy a part of the core curriculum defined bv CPT's euidelines. CPT encouraees innovat~onin introductory cgemistry. To this end c~YT sponsored a symposium on innovations in general chemistry a t the Fall 1990 National ACS Meeting in Washington, DC. CPT's role in improving general chemistry is to provide a leadership role by encouraging different approaches at the first year, monitoring wurse content as part of the entire program, encouraging incorporation of relevant and social examples, and reporting in the CPT Newsletter new innovations to help disseminate information about programs that work. The criticisms and oroblems associated with general chemistry and the recommended reforms are not new. According to Fortman, calls for reform of the current introductory chemistry curriculum date back to shortly after the post-Sputnik era when introductory chemistry was ma& more rigorous, up-to-date and w k e p t and theory oriented. Many of the current recommendations are directly from the McMaster Conference of 1980 (8,9).However, the onlv chances to occur to the curriculum have been the inclusion of m&e descriptive chemistry and the addition of more topics. Fortman states that "only strong, authoritative recommendations on a national level with sug176
Journal of Chemical Education
gested examples of model curricula will begin to bring general chemistrv back to a manageable amount of material. and back to ;reasoning level &table for the average wl: lege students who are onlv beeinnine to become comfortable wlth abstract reason~"ng"-~ackl&of the Task Force bv ACS and NSFmve it the nat~onaloromlnence called for b i ~ o r t m a nThe . goal of the Task ~ o r c is e the construction, testing, and promotion of one or more curricula that can serve as alternatives for teaching introductory chemistry. Therefore, i t is hoped that the Task Force will be the means by which reforms can take place. The Task Force has discussed course content, depth of coverage, sequence of material, the way in which information ispresentrd to students, use of current technolo~yin teaching, an increased emphasis on the lah~ratoryportion of the course. and the use of the most talented and dedicated teachers in introductory courses. Coleman sees several possible aooroaches to the formation of a new curriculum.-One apGoach, termed the 'laundry list" approach, involves deciding which topics should be retained, omitted, or added to the present curriculum. A second approach focuses on urocess and is based on the thinkine skills a student shodd master. Coleman favors a zero-bgsed budgeti n g approach where process and content a r e both important and where the curriculum begins a t zero and all topics must be justified before being included in the new curriculum. Three different strategies for reforming the introductory chemistry content have emerged on the Task Force. These can be summarized as (1) a laboratory-based approach, (2) a subject-area approach based on what the student needs to learn. and (3) a modular aooroach based on a core of fundamental co&pts supplemeked with additional modules. In addition, the Task Force is investigating alternate ways in which information can be presented to the student. These three strateeies mav result in three different curricula or they may converge into a single curriculum from the Task Force. The laboratory-based approach was discussed by Ram Lamba. In the laboratory-based approach concepts will be introduced in the labora&ry and thin more full$discussed in the lecture. The goal of this approach is to design and develop laboratory-based activities in which concepts and principles of chemistry are taught by doing chemistry. This will be acwmplished by a series of "hands-on" as well as "minds-on" experiences designed to motivate students and serve as a starting ooint for the eradual formation of concepts necessary
