I
David W. Brooks University of Nebraskalincoln Lincoln. 68588
I
The S M J Sof General IV, Changes in the future
The purpose of this article is to predict changes likely to occur in the status of general chemistry a t graduate departments during the next five to ten year period. Content
There have been many recent reports concerning the declining skills of entering college freshmen. Glenn Croshy a t Washington State University has gone to great length to document this decline for entering chemistry students a t his school, and there is every reason to believe that his observations reflect a national ohenomenon ( I , 2). College chemistry departments have heed accommodating the d e c k e for some years. I fear that the decline will continue; our brightest hope for the short term is that it will level off. Social forces, rather than inferior pedagogy, teachers, or facilities, have brought about the change. Our society is less "reading" oriented and less homework oriented than i t was fifteen years ago. New high school science curricula are not likely to reverse current trends. School hoards and school orincioals do not seem interested in requiring more homework and reading of students. I t is not a t all clear that these declinine skills forbode ill consequences to our society as a whole. If we are, indeed, flirtine with ootential lone term hazards, then translatine this danger into aprogram for'the adjustment of societal forces will be difficult and probably unsuccessful. Continued declines unfortunately will relegate curricula like CHEM Study to elitist high schools. will be reshaped in response to theenergy ~ d l e i content e rrisis. In the immediate future wecan expecr tosee textbooks reorganized in modest ways to expand "energy content." This process will continue for several years, as new and established authors develon texts which are tested in the marketnlace. Although an entirely new approach may be possible by t6e end of a decade. the inertia of the marketolace will resist immedint*.change. In ten years, a text which comprehensively deals with both sides of Einstein's eauation mav he and orohablv will he abundantly successful.
-
New Pedagogy
Rather detailed analvses of the current methods of eeneral chemistry instruction &e now available. Given a teacher's ohiectives. a bodv of students. defined instructional resources. and the history of the instructional setting, a skilled analyst can compare the practice of instruction with its intent. When one sets a goal of having most students solve prohlems bv analvzine . . them in terms of chemical concepts and applying concrpts in nrw pr~~hlern settings, the goal is often frustmted,. . oanicularlv in the ahsence of rarefully preselected .. students. Achieving significantly greater success in this area will require new methods of instruction. The methods that we use in the future will hinge upon the outcome of current research and development in Piagetian strategies. If there is to be a major breakthrough soon, the Piagetians will provide it. I am not convinced that the boundarv hetween concrete ooerational and formal operational thinking, as described by ~ i a ~ e t i a n s , is one which can be transcended by the aid of any teaching strategy. Therefore, I see no "quantum jump" forthcoming in our teaching ability. Many of the writings of Piagetians would have us believe otherwise. I t will he delightful if they prove to be correct. 90 1 Journal of Chemical Education
Considerable progress along the lines heing developed by J . Dudley Hrrron is likely (3).Herron's efforts may lead to ratalogsof "illustrations" whirhran he used when dealing with abstract chemical notions. If one is able to catalog and rlassify illustrutions so that the\, mas be used within conventional (or perhaps even resequencedj instruction, then instructional effectiveness will he markedly enhanced. We will improve in our ability to have students perform adequately a t complex tasks even though they will not "understand" what they are about. (It is not a far-fetched notion that "understandine" ultimately comes from successfully doing many related tasis; that oatterns of thoueht are eventuallv. . oerceived as such hv " integrating the many individually memorized strategies.) Mv own oualms reeardine our present conduct of lahorataw instruction were expressedln thk first of these articles. since I believe that imoroved lab instruction will reauire entirely new thinking, there is no way of predicting if or &hen this wiil come about. Here again, the Piagetians may have a role to play in improving approaches. As ever, the difficulty will come in selecting laboratory examples which are illustrations rather than analogies. Hardware Innovations
Striking audio-visual media developments are not expected in the decade. Electronic calculators have advanced so far that the averaee zeneral chemistry student now has far more calculating power that s h e can-wisely use. Most extensions of previously unexplored avenues related to student performed calculations will offer few new surprises. There is one area in which dramatic, if not spectacular, progress is very likely-computer aided instruction. Most early models of CAI have been based upon big computers. ~ h e s machines e cost too much! When some systems engineer takes a notion to reconnect a few wires, programmers feel the impact for weeks. Too much costly hardware is used! Too many people get into the act! CAI today is a million dollar idea, and most institutions do not have an extra million dollars with which to explore it. In a few years (months), CAI of the $10,000 variety is expected. Since most deans have $10K for $10K ideas, fmancing will not impede start-up. The hardware will consist of a keyhoard-typewriter, a small computer with subordinate microprocessors, a color TV monitor, a magnetic floppy disk device, perhaps an optical floppy disk device, and some gadgets ( 4 ) . Disks can play back over 50,000 individual picture frames, one-at-a-tkeor in a motion sequence. Properly configured and programmed, these hardware conglomerates will become super-tutors. Much of this equipment and strategy has heen in evidence for a t least five years, and many creative people have already become involved. But the quantum jump will result from lower-priced and improved hardware; today we recommend to our students $20 calculators as powerful as those we bought Editor's No1e:'Thi.i is the last in nseries of papers "Thr Stnrm of General Chemistry," prepared by invnstmn and dratgned u, hring together the major features and underlying philosophies of general chemistry introduction as pursued in colleges and universities today. Professor Brooks was asked to report primarily on programs involving large numbers of students. Similar "state ofthe art" reDo& on eeneral chemistry in liberal arts colleges and two-year colleges are &nned for later this year.
four short years ago for 5400. There are still some roadblocks, oarticularlv those related to the technolow and total market potential df the image recording/retriev& equipment. Once these problems are resolved, i t will he possible to produce a powerful hut inexpensive CAI machine-no million dollars to set up; no systems engineers to hire. Previous experience, particularly from the University of Illinois, the University of Texas at Austin, and the many already active small system users (5 J can all he hrnught to bear, since each project hasdealt slightly differently with CAI prohlems. Many teachers will be nhie t,; -.-. ~- eet into the CAI business in a short time. In some instances it may prove propitious to author programs using the power of large systems and then transfer these in toto as self-contained packages into the super-tutors. Also. new interactions within the chemical education community will arise. Undergraduate departments, particularlv small ones. have not heen dealt with in this series of articles. ~ x c h a n g e sof teaching programs and teaching techniaues between small and large schools tend to he unsuccessful. In fact, two small schools, similar in every respect except for their chemistry programs, are often unable to exchan-geprograms succesddly for reasons of historical precedent. Graduate and undergraduate departmenta rarely make extensive exchanem. Since the small scale CAI described here is tailor-made for individual teachers, there is every reason to believe that a meanineful interchanee between small and large departments will r< from contacts made between individual faculty memhers. If there is one thing to which the best of small departments can point with pride, it is the personalized tutorinir which thev provide to their students. Low-cost CAI may make t h i i k s e t within the reach of us all. The development of this new CAI will he filled with intellectual challenee. at least in the early stages. I t will not be automatic to tu& a successful desk-side, one-ou-one tutoring strategy into a successful CAI program. Also, as we acquire the advantage of getting rid of the systems engineer person, we will he forced to take some of that responsibility upon ourselves. The hardware will he tricky at first, and some of the "gadgets" will turn out to he circuits that we will amuse ourselves by designing. Nevertheless, the development of super-tutors will he a delightful experience and it will he very disappointing if we are not all well into it hefore the end of this decade D~~
~~~~~~~~
~~
~~
~
~
~~~~~
~
~
~
~
~
Management . The next decade promises to be a particularly dreary one for chemistry~-program managers. The forces which shape our ~ocietvwill nressure us toward conservative action, and much of that will be protectionist in nature. Turn to the second pnge of rhe Tahle of Contents of this verv issue of the Journal of Chemical Education and notice theiittle insert hox entitled, "Resnonsihilitv." This notice was not included in the first issues of 1977. It is an examplr nf our editor protecting Thv Journal! Whv? Which authors in their right minds ever designed experiments to he invidiously dangerous? Anyone can look throueh - hack issues of The Journal and find experimenb which we now recognize as hazardous. In many classical experiments, the hazard was up front. More students were taken to the hospital as a result of bending glass and making glass wash bottles during the first lab session of the traditional lab sequenre of twenty years ago than during all modern experiments of a single semester combined. It is the fear of legal action which has hrought Thp Jburnal to publi~hthis statement. Managers will t,e confronted with situations most easily resolved by the creation ot'"protectionist" innovation, 1 fear. at the rust of too lirtle chemical education innovation. .General chemistry teachers are often forced into situations where the course oileast resistance is to pass students along throueh general chemistry, re~ardlessof their performance. ~ h i l ~ c o & t e r f o r c eto s this trend may arise, perhaps as a re~~
~
~
sult of tight job markets in those areas requiring chemistry, the pressure toward relaxed standards will increase. I t would he surprising, indeed, to hear of a suit in which a student claimed the level of preparation available in a particular course to he inadeouate. Enrollment trends are also uncertain. As of this writing, no hard data are available for the 1977-78 fall semester. However, most program managers were told t o expect slight decreases in enrollment, and most seem to have experienced substantial enrollment increases. This may not be home out by hard data. Nevertheless. it does boggle the imagination to predict the lengths to which some departments may go to maintain their enrollments during the soon-to-come period of steeply declining student populations. Also, the differential degree to which nationally declining enrollments will affect graduate uer,ws undergraduate departments is uncertain. One hopeful note is that a "first annual" meeting ofgeneral chemistry nmrdinators is scheduled for late spring, 1978. l h i s meeting is very likely to bring trememdous henefits to particioatine institutions. For years MASUA (Mid-AmericaState un;versgy Association) &emistry department chairpersons have met annuallv. The data. documents, and ideas exchanged freely and openl; at their meetings have proven e n o r m o d y helpful to departmental leaders. Personnel In order to maintain suitable quality, all professions need an influx of hrieht dedicated voune-. oeoole. . There will be a few openings for general chemisiry teachers in the next decade. Who will ioin the ranks? Recruitine for facultv ~ositionsis u n u s u a l ~ ~ ~ right o o d now. Mediocre>epartrne&&e flooded with excellent a~olications.few of which would have been ago. Most graduate departments with received ten reasonable support are able to hire exceptionallv ~romisina young researcl&s. The prognosis for thei;snpportis excellent. Although hassles in obtaining research grants have increased over the last decade, they have not the growth of management-related hassles in teaching. Clearly this atmosphere will decrease rather than increase the likelihood that young faculty will devote their careers to excellence in general chemistry instruction. In the current climate, successfully leading students to learning requires teaching skills that far exceed those needed a decide ago. Novice teachers are more likely than ever to encounter frustration during their early attemots at teachine. Thus adootine a research orientation rathe; than a teachrng orientacon rn one's career will look better than ever before. As in any profession, future prospects diminish when the best people are not attracted to the ranks. Are Resources Apportloned Fairly? One can oredict with virtual certaintv that hieher education will he extdnsive~yscrutinized in the next decade. Declining enrollments and demands for accountability will make this more likely than ever. Will society's perception of the kind of chemical education its students receive in lower division courses a t graduate centers change during the next decade? Most citizens view their major state universities as schools to which they may send their children for quality education. They know little about undergraduate programs and know even less about graduate programs. The average taxpayer would he shocked to learn of the day-by-day, decision-hydecision procedures which interrelate graduate and undergraduate instruction. A similar situation prevails for private institutions; parents know much about institutional prestige, hut have little knowledge of the basis for that prestige. A summary report analyzing programs of the Science Education Directorate of NSF is illuminating (6). Its enumeration of program ohiectives includes "extend 'sustenance' to all 2-ye& a i d &ye& educational institutions." In justifying this policy, it speaks to the henefits which "spill over" to under6aduate pr&ams at graduate research centers. There are Volume 55, Number 2, February 1978 1 91
thousands and thousands of undergraduates attending general chemistry classes at graduate research centers. One might justify a funding policy leading to "equity" between primarily graduate and primarily undergraduate centers if, in fact, there are spillovers which benefit the undergraduate a t graduate centers. Do such benefits really exist? Within most departments, all resources are pooled--even in spite of line item hudeets "~ that mav be used. Thus instructional resources intended hy parents and taxpayers for undergraduates often end u p heing applied to research. Here are some examples. Proportionately, fewer faculty salary dollars from undergraduate tuition end uo in oersonalized undermaduate instruction: undergraduates have large classes, restricted access to faculty durine office hours. and usuallv infrequent faculty visits durin; labs. Tho~e~raduatestudents beit in researrh areoffered rrsrarch assistantshir~soften leaving the lrait chemically rates amongGTAs are very high, qualified to teach. with typical "graduate student lifetimes" as GTAs in general chemistry heing less than three semesters. Rarely are GTAs rewarded in salary for good teaching. In fact, TAs whospend much time on their teaching often spend an extra year in research as a result. Whenever an ineffective teacher, one who mav or mav not be an effective researcher. is assimed to a general chemistry class, society's intent for ;line item general chemistrv teachine hudeet has been subverted. Such situations abound, andiave Lecome a standing joke (7). It is a wonder. in this era of consumerism and public disrlmure, why academic institutions do not require ;searchers to submit some kind of Instmrtional Impact Statement with grant proposals. These statements would project how the funding of a particular research project would alter the course of the institution's instruction. I t is prohahly feared that, on balance, such a move would lead to worsened rather than improved instructional conditions. The NSF Report does suggest that ". . . we must more precisely evaluate the education content of our research activities" (in the context of student assistants on research grants). The model which is usually presented for undergraduate instruction at a graduate institution is a symhiotic model. The graduate TA, in exchange for a stipend that allows for graduate education and research, provides instruction to undergraduates in a more or less close-knit relationship. What the graduate student lacks in teaching skill and experience is to he made up for by genuine enthusiasm for learning chemistry and a natural comraderie with students who are almost peers. Though I've never seen that model work extremely well, I do suhscrihe to it. (In the svmbiosis it is assumed that the "currency" of undergraduate course content is enhanced a t a graduate center relative to that at departments not stressing research. This popular notion is a fiction, especially at the eeneral chemistrv level.) At many instkutions that I visit and consult with, the svmhiotic model is incorrect: a oarasitic model prevails, one in which the underpaduate progknn gives so much morr t h m It rerelves that thv aualitv of its ~erformance is impaired. In very few cases is the graduate program a spin-off with the undergraduate program receiving more than it gives in return. The symhiotic model requires that all chemistry department faculty, not just a few program managers, discuss the balance of resources between undergraduate and graduate nromams. What is an incominefreshman student entitled to in tKe way of institutional support of hisher learning? What is the student's own responsibility for learning? If parents and ~
~
urno over
~
~~~
taxpayers decide to evaluate the "spillover values" of existing svmbiotic models, a moss reaction mav result. This is likely tb affect public institutions where le&lators seek cost a;countabilitv more than private schools where parents seek prestige. A suspicious person might see the NSF policy as creating an environment in which the symbiotic model has little chance for survival. My own feeling is that "spillover" usually is in the direction of graduate programs, and that moves to achieve "equity" among institutions will further deprive undergraduates in classes at eraduate centers. Frankly, I dislike talking about spillovers and symbioses and the like. in the context of teachine eeneral chemistrv. Teaching can be analyzed. These articieswere written with the assumotion that most chanzes in the status of eeneral chemistry i r e predictable. w e k i l l welcome more knergy content in the curriculum and adjust calmly. Though they will cause (pleasant) upheavals, progress from the Piagetians, new methods of lab instruction, and low-cost CAI super-tutors will be welcomed. I for one, however, feel especially uneasy about the tsunami which might he brought about by separate zero base budgeting of undergraduate and graduate programs-a likely result if the symbiotic model is carefully examined by just few state legislatures and then abandoned. Thanks ...-..... When the editor described this series of articles, the intent was to present to Journal readers an investigative report of the strengths and weaknesses of general chemistry instruction as it is now conducted nationally in graduate-oriented deoartments. While the undereraduate chemistrv nroeram at .. the University of ~ebraska-Lincolnis not the Mecca of such programs, neither is it the pits. Some things we do well; others need improvement. Lest a casual reader incorrectly imply that the orohlems noted in these articles are those of UN-L, mav I point out that quite the contrary is often true. My department has traditionallv maintained strong commitments in chemical education. Moral and financial sGpport, though not lavish. are far better than satisfactorv. I t would be inappropriate'not to mention this support, which extends heyondour department to most corners of our campus. We are supported with the notions that: studen~smust solve problems; learning to do so is the student's responsibility; our job is to maximim the student's learning. Lastly, there exists an air of humanism about the UN-L campus which encourages and supports those teachers who valuehighly their personal interaction with students. L
~
-
~
~
-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~~~
92 1 Journal of Chemical Education
More Thanks I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the following of my teachers, students, and colleagues: Helen Barnes, Frank Brescia, Charles R. Dawson, Robert G. Fuller, Joseph D. Gettler, Glenn R. Johnson, Andre C. Kihrick, Hanna Levenson, J. D. Lewis, Karron Lewis, Daniel C. Noonan, John E. Ricci, Thomas J. Tipton, Edwin 0. Wiig, and Delivee B. Wright. Literature Cited
"..-...."""".
(4) ScientificA
237, No. 3 (1977). Arevimof miemelectronicsandmmput-
~ Z ~ ~ Vol. C O ~ .
