Reflections from the Conference Chairman In the searching and probing questions and comments of over 450 dedicated individuals in an idyllic but toobrief two and a half days on the peaceful Mount Holyoke College Campus under the cheerful and competent care of the local chemists with generous support from the chemical industry, the Chemical Education Conference 1972 illustrated in microcosm efforts of chemistry teachers throughout-principally-the United States and Canada to come to terms with and to understand the role of science and education in afree society. The problems were not new. The answers-appropriately-ever-changing. For we cannot go hack (says the Second Law). Each generation faces, perhaps apprehensively (if satisfied with things as they are) or-the dominant mood of the Holyoke Conference~ptimistically(if hopeful for things as they might he) old issues in new disguises. Historically, stated reasons for supporting science and education have changed with the political seasons. Science, though not now center stage, bas been, nonetheless, an important component of higher education in the West since the French Experience under the Republic and Napoleon I. The Republican ideal, writes L. Pearce Williams, historian of science, was a nation of free men who, through knowledee of the universe and the societv in which thev lived, would deliberate cooly on matters of national interest and arrive at policies through the exercise of reason and intelligent debate (I). The study of science, continues Williams, was (naively deemed?) the very cornerstone of this approach, for the harmony and order the sciences revealed (in most restricted domains?) justified (they thought; or wished to think?) the assumption of (and wildly optimistic extrapolation to?) the adequacy of (scientific-like?) reason (in complex, worldly affairs?) (I). (For science only tells us what: happens if, for example, sulfur is burned in air. Science-not yet even social science-tells us not whether we will hum sulfur, nor whether we should burn sulfur. Those are more difficult, probably trans-scientific questions (2).) Students in the French Republic were allowed complete freedom in their choice of subjects and attendance. No snecific order of courses existed. Courses could he added or dropped anytime. The result: educational anarchy (I). Na~oleon.on the other hand. brooked no nonsense. disobedience, criticism, or discussion. The function of education in his state, writes Williams, was correspondingly redefined: The Principal goal of education ought to he to give everyone the knowledge necessary for him to fulfill the functions in society to which he is called. For Napoleon (and the US?) science was a weapon to he used against enemies (I). "We did not sell a love of science during the Sputnik era," has said H m y Kelley, former NSF administrator. "we sold fear." All teaching in ~ap&nic France was subordinated to the necessities of the art of war (on England, not yet poverty or pollution). Courses were simplified and "directed toward their practical aspects." Instruction in the fundamental theories of the sciences took too much time. Practical knowledpe, not understanding, was the paramount ~onsideration.~Science declined (I). Such are the Scylla of science pursued solely for the students' (and scientists') sake and the Charybdis of science supported solely for society's sake. Not easy is it to chart non-capsizing courses between the two extremes.
Among the Conference's memorable moments were several inspiring accounts of expertly executed runs through the narrows. Repeatedly the Conference grappled, overtly and covertly, with this related problem: How to prepare young men and women for pleasurable careers in a profit-oriented industry that hires specialists over generalists, forceably reminding them that "The dollar sign must he over the door of all of our laboratories," "Our objectives have to be more short-range," "The researcher must recognize his responsibility for making a profit" (3), then, in an inversion of the philosophical principles of insurance, takes much from a few (employees) to give a little to many (stockholders) and fires dedicated individuals who, after devoting their professional lives to the company's narrow interests, have hecome "technically obsolete," "inflexible, " and "unadaptable." The issue Science for the Sake of Science or Society is a knotty one. Fields rated high in "intrinsic" merit (potential for discovering new fundamental laws; in physics, for example, studies of elementary particles, astrophysics, and relativity) are usually rated low in "extrinsic" merit (potential for solving societal problems), whereas fields rated high in extrinsic merit (acoustics and optics) are widely rated low in intrinsic merit (4). The emergent answer a t Conference '72 to Chemistry for Pleasure or for Profit?; Chemistry Pure or Applied? appeared to he Both. We want the "words" and the "music". Some students seek chiefly training in chemistry, others education through chemistry. To judge from Holyoke, institutions everywhere, big and small, public and private, are seeking their own-not always manifest--destiny, their own distinctiue missions, acknowledging Hegel's contention that freedom is the recognition of necessitv. These are our students. What can we do for them? The ever-chaneine orohlem for the American Chemical Society's Committee on Professional Training is how best to promote for students, employers, and the discipline of chemistry a healthy balance between the words and the music, the pure and the applied, the pleasurable and the profitable, the intrinsic and the extrinsic, through specific "Objectives and Guidelines" that, while not inhibiting at centers of excellence innovations in patterns of teaching and research, will be useful to departmental chairmen seekine from colleee administrators increased s u ~ o o r for t emerging programs in chemical education. The ever-oresent "~rohlem" for the Conference was. in Lagowskib words, the "misery of success3'-unexpectedly many participants, papers, spouses, and children. The enthusiasm, patience, and goodwill of the speakers, the audience, and the Mount Holyoke staff; the vigorous and disciplined exchange of views in a packed auditorium; the wealth of shared experiences in unscheduled sessions during meals, the afternoons, and late evening to early morning hours was heartwarming to witness. K t made one proud to he a member of the profession. Literature Cited
-
-
..
L. P..Ism, 47, p M I. Doc., L956. Reprinted in ',The Rise d Science in Relation to Society", L. M. Manak. ed.. The Maemillan Co.. N. Y., 1964. pp.
(1) Williams.
Henry Bent North Carolina State University Volume 50, Number 1, January 1973 / 5
I: Objectives of Education in Chemistry Session I-& Faculty Set Moderator: Jay Young, Auburn University Scribes: Leallyn B. Clapp, Brown University Malcolm Renfrew, University of Idaho The Keller method of instruction, geared to a student's natural learning pace, is finding enthusiastic practitioners in chemistry. The method breaks u p the course into a number of units with specific objectives on which the student is tested; he must master a unit before he proceeds t o the next, and he may repeat the test to demonstrate his mastery as often as proves necessary. Grades in the course are based on the number of units completed, commonly a mix of laboratory and theory being required. The empbasis tends toward a thoroughness of understanding of limited content rather than completeness of course content. Teachers who have made use of the method usually hecome enthusiastic about its effectiveness, as demonstrated in the following papers. These have a tone of evangelistic fervor tempered with scientific caution. Difficulties encountered with the Keller approach are recognized, but the practitioners strike a balance in its favor.
The Keller Plan: Intimacy in the Classroom Linda A. Eggleston and Hans H. Brintzinger, Uniuersity of M i c h i g a ~Ann Arbor
In winter semester 1972, a second semester general chemistry course was offered under the Keller Plan format. The class was diverse even though i t was heavily weighted to the highly motivated student. The course was offered for 5 hr of credit with 8 hr of lab/wk. The traditional lecture material was divided into 17 units with 3 review units. Each of these units consisted of a list of behavioral objectives, suggested exercises, and an assigned exercise. Exams were graded P / F a t an 80% pass level. If a student failed he could take another exam. These exams were computer generated. A pass required passing the assigned exercise (usually a problem in divergent thinking). The laboratory was also offered under the Keller Plan. 7 units were required for an A. 3 of these were required units on basic techniques (qualitative analysis, spectronic 20, and potentiometric titration). 1 lab unit had to be an original project. The other 3 units could be out of the standard lab manual or anything else. These were graded P F requiring a high level of performance for a P. As the course was an experimental format we felt we could not grant an A for merely completing all of the units. An optional final exam was offered and final course grades were based on a sliding scale (below). In order to do some comparative studies identical final exams were given to the students in another second semester course which covered the same material, with the same hook only under a traditional lecture format. Units Passed
Lab units required
Final
No
final
80+
100+
125+
150+
It was noted that although the means were the same the students scored the points in different areas. The final exam was categorized according to Bloom's Taxonomy of 6 / Journal of Chemical Education
Cognitive Educational Objectives. It can he seen in the table below that the experimental group scored higher than the control group on the higber level cognitive ahilities. Experimental 1.1 1.2 2.1
Control 67% 57.8 81
66.2% 70.5 966 81.1 79.7 37.7 55.7 61.7
A significantly higber percentage of the experimental
moun. attemnted the oroblem rated higher on Bloom's -Taxonomy. The control group scored a higher percentage correct in those attempted, however it is hypothesized that this is due to the higher degree of confidence required of these students before they would attempt the more creative problem. We feel that the success of this course is not to be found in improved academic achievement. It is to he found in the attitudes of the students and staff. The majority of the students felt that the course was less competitive and therefore the grade pressure was less. 81% felt that their understanding of chemical principles was better than it would have been in a conventional course. They consistently felt that the course had been fair-independent of the grade they received. 87% rated this course higher than traditional courses in personal interaction. As the staff went, 6 out of 7 teaching fellows would opt to teach this course again under the Keller Plan; 5% out of 7 would he willing to teach it 2 semesters per year in the Keller format. The Keller Plan appears to be a viable option to the traditional lecture format for a certain group of people, both students and teachers, and a certain size of group. It should not he taken as a cure-all or a Utopia. Care should be taken as, if it works, it appears to work beautifully. If it fails, it could be a disaster for the student. Comments Jack Garland, Washington State Unioersity. The undergraduate tutors may have been the students most benefitted by the moeram. Will retention of suhiect matter hv the tutors be evalbt;d later? Dr. Eggleston. We would like to evaluate the retention of all of the students in the course and compare it to the control group. This would also yield data on whether the tutors retained more of the material than the other students. However, as those people connected with the course are not at the University this year it will he difficultif not impossible to collect this data. John Laswiek, Clarion Stote College. The Keller plan appears to have its greatest impact early in the term when the student, often for the first time in his life, is required to do a thing as well as he can. Then when that is not good enough to do the same thing better. Is the early effectlater dissipated? Dr. Eggleston. We didn't notice an appreciable dissipation. Instead I think that the students came to require the best from themselves. Seldom, if ever, did we have a student argue over
.?uallaaxa uaaq seq srajjo Lpnqs jo asmoa e qans $eq? mopaarl aq? ?daaae 01 L?!m?em aq? aaeq qeqj s?uap& as& & o ~ jasuodsar q u a p n ? ~.sauo paqnb -ar aq? 0% uorpppe u1 sanqaatqo ?uamqa!rua jo raqmnu papreme are s a p e s ..g,, pue paq!rzka~d e 2ui?aldmoa 1 0 ~ aq& .,& e sums sa.%!?aa(qo par!nbar aq? 30 uo!?ald -mo3 .rapamas aql jo pua aq? qe "a?aldmoau!,, U E ua@ s! aq 'saa!$aaCqo par~nbaiaq? pa~aldmoaqou seq aq qanoq? uana apem s! ssaSord alqeuoseai j! pue 'awd umo s!q %as03 pamolp s! luapnls aq& 's11!9s uo!?ea!unmmoa pue
"v,, .sa!?au!q [ea!maqa pus sa!meuLpomiaq? lea!ssqa uaamiaq pap!.up Lllenba lnoqa aram yrom spqsamas Isnj aq? u! papnlaur . . . . sardo? . aq.1, .- 's?uamuBrsse palord Lao?eioqel g pue 's~uamri3!sse ?!un pa?ua!io-raindmoa g ' u q d ralli$ a q i 0% Lraso1a &an pauraqqed sxrun Lpnp 91 jo sls!suoa p e o ~yrom s';a7samas && . a s m o i Lr?$maq; ,ea!s&d la~al-ro!unC 'rapamas qsnj aq? roj ma?sLs Bu!urea[ e ow! pa?erodroau! uaaq aneq ue1d rallay aq? jo samqeaj Ieluamepuq aq& .uo!?anrlsu! paz!lenp!a!pu! 'paaed-jlas uo paseq au!qaeal aBalloa 0%qaeoidde an!pnouu! auo p ? a p amos u! alsB!lsa.%u! 0%Lpmwoddo UE peq seq roqwe s!q& 'L?!lenp!a!pu! Iernqna pue Ien?aal[a? -u! umo s!q p a ? pue lno yaas Llan!?ae uea uosrad e uaqm am!? e se sanras aaua!iadxa aaalloa aq& .spunor%yaeq a!mapeae pua [einqna '[e!aos 'a!mouoaa 'p!qdeSoaB 30 Lerm ap!m Ban e moq Bu!?eu!a!ro suosrad Buno.4 jo L?!unmmoa anb!un e s! sndmea L?!sraa!un ro aaalloa ~
~~
-u! 30 (qaea srnoq moj) sralsamas om? aq? jo qaea roj paiaj -30 uaaq seq squapnls OZI L~a~em!xoidderoj uo!?aas a u o yl!ys uo!?ea!unmmoa pue sa!?emaq?em 'sa!sLqd 'Law! m a q 3 UI salpnls arsaq lo smoq gp amos $0 sprsuoa 4a!4m
v
.raql!a ropsj lusa!j@!sn aq olmadds l,usaop 1! ralsamas s!ql asrnoa pluam!ladxa aql UI 'au!lsnrps alqnorl Lus ansq l,up!p quapnls m o ' w d lsom aql 103 .leuo!l!psrl alaM Bu!yvl araM sluapnls mo leql sasmo3 aql 10 asaz aql JO 178 pus 'preoqqaslq aql le raqasal B jo yaq aql JO ~unoaasuo pa~e1nqoqmo3s!p sluapnls aql jo Luam hran laql pu!j $,up!p aM 'uolsapS3 'ra 'l! '03 "0.6 az!q!m pua uqqsej [suo!l!perl-uou e u! ,'y qaaq,, you l l ! ~l o 'louus3 moqM JO lsom 'sadea1pa morj m a q 01 arreq noh aunuoj snoaawno aq& (z) .~mm!luarruoa am saunas zaqlo s!q 1[e J! wq1 M lsnrpe ol sqaam sayel 11 .pwq-u!-yleqa 'pzsoqy3v~q aql la au!pusls lou l a -qasal aql Bu!pu!j u! srajjns luapnls aql lsql ~o!w~nqoqm03s!p aq? (I) :maw& alnlml aql Su!nomal u! amoaram 0%sa!qn3!g!p pmuoa~ mlsm oml am azaqL "uuo3 'aZap3 J?ua?osnoH
. .
payse raglaq aq ppaM uoqsanb 1891 laql qu!ql I ~uolSa1S83'la
sn IIal no^ '&om pun w o ! g l ! ~/o aZalp3 ' 8 u o r l s m ~'x 'v .an swamaapnl anlen rnoh wqM uo spuadap lo1 .In> ma13 os leu s! as83 a i l 'm
