Some Reflections on the
I provocative
inorganic Course The content of the general chemistry course for some time has been subject to much criticism. For instance, the incisive provocative opinions of Robert I. Walter ( 1 ) re, mind us once again that this introductory course is largely a service to a captive audience of students from biology, physics, engineering, and medically-oriented fields. He deplores the notion that what is suitable for the small minority of chemistry majors is automatically best for all the students. Lately i t has occurred to me that the upper division inorganic course suffers in its own way from analogous shortcomings, and that we teachers of the suhject should give some serious thought to the structure, method, and content of what we are doing. I believe we are presenting a highly specialized hody of inorganic subject matter, resulting in the situation that the course as it is taught today treats all chemistry majors as if their prime i n t e . st is inorganic chemistry. As a matter of fact, practicing inorganic chemists probably amount to less than ten percent of the total, and presumably chemistry undergraduates reflect the same proportions. So we have in this advanced course the same situation which persists a t the freshman level, i.e., a course tailored for the needs of a very small minority. Why has this situation developed and why does i t persist? The answer has to be found somewhere in the intellectual and motivational spheres of inorganic chemists. A successful teacher of anv suhiect has to have unbounded enthusiasm for the logic, beauty, excitement, and other attractive characteristics of his field. A ~rofessor.no matter how expert in his knowledge, cannot convey any sense of a ~ ~ r e c i a t i oorn enthusiasm to his students if he himself is lacking on this point. This is so trite as to he a truism. But what is not so obvious is that enthusiasm for one's speciality, even if displayed in the most engaging fashion, does not necessarily spark the interest of a student taking the course under compulsion. Teachers of freshman chemistry have been trying for years to "reach" non-chemistry majors (e.g., pre-meds) with an increasing supply of esoteric and sophisticated topics, and failing to do so. There is a parallel in the one-semester inorganic course. Most of the students enrolled therein will include those who are not committed to inorganic chemistry as a professional goal. Try to imagine one of them, say an average student who does not intend to pursue a graduate degree, and who sees his future occu~ationas an organic chemist in some industrial or laboratory. The extensive treatment of atomic structure, honding theory, and molecular structure, and such esoteric suh$cts a' noble gas compounds, are going to he regarded as just so much formalism and memory work to be hurdled for the sake of getting by. It is an exercise in futility for the inorganic teacher to expect a healthy response from the majority of students in his class when such favorite topics of his own are given such prominence. Although.theoretically the limits of inorganic chemistry are very broad, the leaders in the field seem concerned mainly with coordination chemistry, and perhaps secondarily with boron chemistry. Such would he the impression of anyone who looks at the conterns of a current issue of Inorganic Chemistry or the programs of the Division of Inorganic Chemistry a t an ACS meeting. This narrowness of interests transfers itself to 772
/
Journal of Chemical Education
I
I
opinion
the general community of inorganic teachers and thus permeates classrooms throughout the country. But i t does not convey well enough the type of inorganic chemistry which the average graduating senior should take with him. The Committee on Professional Trainina recentlv has circulated its most recent proposals for the indergraduate chemistry. program, in which the followina statement is . . applied to the present and past aspect oflower division courses. "Emphasis on pure theory has too often led to a neglect of the practical . . . education of professional chemists" (2). The same comment could have been applied equally to the inorganic course. So much time is spent on theory that there is precious little room for descriptive and empirical inorganic chemistry. Admittedly this portion of our field is not the most glamorous, but i t is necessary. The future organic or analytical chemist should be exposed to a hody of knowledge concerning the more important inorganic compounds of the commonest elements. It is with these that he will have the highest probability of contact during the practice of his career. The denigration of the factual side of inorganic chemistry and the resultant chemical illiteracy of our graduates has been exposed previously (3),and I need not pursue the matter further. The Inorganic Chemistry Subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee (4) makes the interesting observation that many inorganic chemists feel that their students are inadequately prepared in the area of hond theory. Presumably such teachers then assume the role of last-ditch rescuers by offering a very extended treatment of this topic. I think this is a mistake. After all, the theory of the chemical hond is not the particular province of inorganic chemistry. The final in-depth study of the fundamentals of hond theory should he made in the prerequisite course of physical chemistry. This should he axiomatic. Now if in fact this suhject is not being presented adequately, then we have a prohlem. The way to solve it is, through appropriate committees, to apprise physical chemists of our concern, tell them what our troubles are, and convince them of the importance of what we need in this area. Once this difficulty is removed, there will he more time available for specifically inorganic topics. However, the situation may not be as bad as these inorganic chemists think. I t is well known that students get "rusty" with those subjects which they do not use constantly. So if a semester or a vacation intervenes between the inorganic and physical courses, students may appear unprepared, but in reality need just a little refreshing. My way of handling this is verv s i m ~ l e ,since I have the utmost confidence that mv inorgani; students have been well taught in the suhject i f chemical bonding in their ~ h v s i c a lchemistry course. So on the first day of class I simply assign for s t i d y the chapters in the physical chemistry text which treat this topic. Naturally, their knowledge is re-enforced as the course unfolds. Courses in every branch of chemistry have to cope with the knowledge explosion (5). This is a perennial problem for all science teachers, for presentation of the new material means less of ~reviouslvtaueht suhiects. But inorean" ic chemistry has a special additional prohlem, because it has become interdisciplinary. I am referring to hioinorga-
nic chemistry. Of course, there has always been a component of inorganic chemistry in biological systems (chlorophyll, hemoglobin, etc.), hut the fusion of inorganic and biochemistry might be said to have been given official sanction hv the recent svmposium, "Bioinoraanic Chemistry," co-sponsored hy the Division of lnorga&c Chemistry and the Chemical Institute of Canada. Naturallv, such a meeting indicates a vigorous and widespread research in this area, and the publication of the papers in the "Advances of Chemistry Series" provides added impetus (6). In other words, hioinorganic chemistry is here to stay, and it behooves teachers of the inorganic course to include something about this hybrid field, and to grapple with the prohlem of what should he eliminated. In so doing, i t would be my hope that they will bear in mind the diversity of chemical goals of their students, and not give the axe solely to elements and compounds which are conventional and traditional, but useful to the non-inorganic chemist. Thus in my view I see two pressing pedagogical prohlems for inorganic teachers, one being an excessive amount of time devoted to bond theory and the other the
need to include newer developments, and especially hioinorganic. It seems to me that this problem can he mitigated considerably by placing the responsibility of teaching hond theory in the hands of the physical chemistry course. The time saved could he utilized for more specifically inorganic topics, old and new, and naturally including applications of hond theory. Literature Cifed 111 Wslter.Robertl.. J. CHEM.EDUC. 19.323(1972). (21 Committee on Professional Training. "Objectives and Guidelines for Undergraduate Programs in Chemistry: Tentative Final Draft of Statement t o Replace 1965 Editionof Minimum Standards." July, 1972. p . 4 . (3) Davenport.0.. 17. 271 119701. I41 "Report of the Inorganic Chemistry Submmmifree of the Curriculum Committee:' J. CHEM. EDUC.. 49.326 (1972). 151 For an inter&ing opinion on the ddetorioua offee* of expansionism in science teaching8ooOldendorf. W.. Science, 176.966119721. 161 "Advances in Chemistry Series No. 1W. Bioinorganic Chemistry,- Ameriesn Chemicsi Society, Washineton. 1971.
J.CHEM.EOUC..
D.C.,
Mel Gorrnan University of San Francisco San Francisco, California 941 17
Volume 50. Number
11.
November 1973 / 773
