Report of the
Conference on
Laboratory Instruction in Chemistry Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute June 10-12, 1974
Introduction Actual laboratory experience in the teaching of chemistry-particularly at the undergraduate level-has long been recognized by most chemists as an indispensible part of the instructional program. Personal laboratory involvement not only gives the student some familiarity with apparatus and techniques associated with the experimental side of abstract concepts, it also develops an awareness of practical methods for dealing with systems as they actually behave in the real world in contrast to the "ideal" behavior normally stressed in lectures. Above the development of skills, it should also instill in the student some of the enthusiasm and excitement that can come through creativity and discovery by working with his own hands. Unfortunately this need for laboratory instruction is not fully recognized in some "unenlightened" college administrators, who perhaps more fully appreciate the consequences of sky-rocketing costs in laboratory courses in the overall scheme for survival of the institution, and see in this teaching technique an apparent grossly inefficient utilization of personnel, equipment, and space. Experimental chemistry has become much more complex in the last few years, and this complexity inevitably finds its way into the teaching laboratory with the use of highly sophisticated apparatus and instructional aids. In addition, various innovative programs based on radical changes in laboratory organization and stressing new concepts in student investigative responsibilities have been introduced into undergraduate laboratory instruction over the past decade, and tbese are bound to have far-reaching effects on chemical education. The benefits to he derived by students through tbese changes are however sometimes difficult to evaluate, and often it is all too easy to lose sight of the desired goals and end products of the teaching process in the maze of pedagogy and "black boxes." Clearly then there is a need for continuing evaluation of our programs and for identification of emerging trends in laboratory instruction. To this end the Chemistry Department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute conducted a Conference On Laboratory Instruction in Chemistry in cosponsorship with the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The Conference was held on June 10-12, 1974 on the Troy campus of R.P.I., which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. The 200 participants represented a wide geographic distribution (34 states and 5 Canadian provinces) and a spectrum of educational institutions ranging from large state universities to small liberal arts and developing urban colleges. The three-day Conference was organized into five single sessions; each was devoted to a specific aspect of laboratory instruction and consisted of a plenary lecture followed by short contributed papers. The five areas included were: Laboratory Organization; The Integrated Laboratory; Instructional Aids and Equipment; Computers in Laboratory Instruction; and the General Chemistry Laboratory.
Abstracts of the plenary lectures and contributed papers are presented below, and a summary and editorial comment were given in the July issue of this Journal (J. CHEM. EDUC., 51,427 (1974)). Many examples were presented illustrating ways in which the intemated or unified laboratow. .. which serves to break down traditional boundaries in chemistry, is being developed successfully a t different types of institutions for both major and non-major students and a t all levels of instruction. More evaluation of these programs and followup of students in advanced undergraduate and graduate work and in industry are needed, however, to determine if the increased time and financial commitments are justified. A major emphasis continues to be towards more reliance on the investigative approach and on involving the student in the experimental planning so as to develop more of a research attitude and a feeling of personal accomplishment, although considerable discussion centered around the values of structured programs versus openended projects. A consensus may be that both approaches are really necessary to provide adequate instruction in the basic skills of experimental chemistry as well as to stimulate enthusiasm for the scientific process. It was strongly pointed out, however, that there can be quite a difference in motivation and in appropriate objectives between a group of minority students in an evening urban college and chemistry majors at a small private liberal arts college or a large state university. The importance and diversity of laboratory aids and equipment-including computer-assisted instruction and uses of computers in lahoratorv management, direct on-line data acquisition, and simulation-were well recognized, and some spectacular uses of visual aids and instructional techniques were demonstrated; the greatly increased costs of these methods were often cited, however, and there was no unanimity as to the extent to which modern experimental apparatus should he understood by the student or used simply as a "black box." Finally, it was clear throughout the Conference by the manners of presentation, if not specifically stated in so many words, that excellent, exciting teachers and teaching asiistants can be the most effective transmitters and catalysts of scientific enthusiasm. The Organizing Committee wishes to thank all those who participated in this meeting for making what we immodestly feel was a highly successful Conference. We also thank the International Union of Pure and Applied Cbemistry for its cosponsorship, and the Sterling-Winthrop Research Institute, Fisher Scientific Company, and Teledyne Gurley for partial financial support. David A. Aikens Ronald A. Bailey Stanley C. Bunce G. Marvin Clark, Jr.
Herbert M. Clark Seymour Dondes Norbert F. Hepfinger Robert L. Strong, Chairman
Volume 52. Number 1. January 1975
/
27
