Should Computers Replace TA's? In recitationsltutorials perhaps but my research-minded colleagues are not about to let it happen. After all, the first two or three years of chemistry graduate school may be defined as a work-study program financed not by the federalgovernment but by the involuntary subsidy of the parents of undergraduates. It is hard to envision any chemistry department head in the near future responding t o a newly redundant graduate student in the terms a French king used to a lowly petitioner: "I1 faut que je wive." "Je n'en oois pas la nec&ssit&."If he made such a response, he would not remain department head for very long.
As designated devil's advocate for Project SERAPHIM my final comment on this latest wonder of educational technology is shownjn Figure 6. The immemorial problems of teaching endure but a t least we have been vouchsafed a marvelous new tool with which to chip away at the darkness.
Should Computers Replace Labs? Certainly, if fact abdicates in favor of fiction, which fortunately nature is unlikely to allow to happen. There are times, however, when my faith wavers. Only today, I saw the latest PhD prelim examination written by illustrious physical chemistry colleagues. Two things struck me: physical chemists still use ergs and dynes and in none of the twelve questions is any specific chemical species invoked nor any set of chemical data cited. One is reminded of Donald Hall'stwo-line poem
Figure 5. Cartoon by John Caldwell from "Animals, Animals. Animals." (Editors: h r g Boom, ~ Gahan Wilson, and Ron Wo1in)and used with me kind permission 01 Harper 8 Row Publishers, Inc., New Y a k Copyright @ 1979 by The Cartoonisis Guild. Inc.
Summary and Conclusions John W. Moore Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti. Mi 48197
Summarizing and drawing conclusions about the remarks of as diverse a group of experts as were involved in this symposium is a tall order. However, there were a number of parallels in the talks presented, and I think the symposium a t least began to delineate where and how computers can contribute to chemical education. There was agreement that the computer provides new ways of approaching problems, for faculty, for students, and for chemists in general. Examples are Stan Smith's equationbalancing exercise in which the screen is constantly updated to show how many atoms are present and Allan Smith's use
Figure 4. Drawing by 0.Soglow: kc.
@ 1947. 1975. The New Ywker Magazine.
l'oettrai Phjlnndm only thought to l w e He w m r to bed with what he rhoucht the girl* were symbols of.
Jean Martin Charcot had some rather odd ideas but he was on the right track when he claimed, again in the language of Pascal: "La theorie c'est bon, rnais $a n'ernp&che pas d'exister." Theory is fine hut it doesn't prevent thingsfrom happening. As a preparation for, supplement to, and extension of the teaching laboratory, computers clearly have a great future. But with the possible exception of the chemistry (or a t least the physics) of phosphors, beginning science cannot be done on a TV monitor. Words, symbols, mathematical formulae, and graphics may be manipulated on the screen with marvelous dexterity, but it is words, symbols, mathematical formulae, and graphics that are being manipulated-not chemical substances. 34
Journal of Chemical Education
Fiaure 6. Cartwn from ''Cmtmns hom Punch."lEdm: William Hewiston) and US~O wth me k m perm ssmn of St Manon s Press. Inc New Yorr Copyrtght @ 1979 oy P ~ n c nPub .cations mnted
-
.
cases a teacher has examined the problem of teaching a particular concept or procedure and devised a method of showing the student a different aspect than would be shown in a book, or in a non-computerized lecture. Simulations such as those I described can he used to induce students to approach mnthcmntical models in a different way, nnd nutomated laboratories like Stan Burden's expose students LO experimental design and data analysis aspe& of laboratory workthat would be difficult to access any other way. In designing computerbased materials we should be constantly on the alert for new approaches to the problems of teaching or learning that the com~uterallows us to trv. Nkarly every speaker illuded to the computer as a tool At the end of Stan Smith's talk we heard. ". . .we have added one more thing to the list of tools that we have for teaching." Derek Davenport closed with, "The immemorial problems of teaching endure, hut a t least we have been vouchsafed a marvelous new tool with which to chip away at the darkness." In between we heard from Jeff Davis about how that tool mieht be linked with others we are more familiar with, and from Joe Lagowski and Jeff about many of the logistic and administrative burdens from which that tool might release us. Stan Burden uses the computer as a timesaving tool for students, and puts the students' time to use on thinking instead of collecting data. Allan Smith alluded to several uses of this r business world. We new tool that parallel those ~ o ~ u lina the would do weli to examine the many applications that have made microcomputers the success story they are in business, with an eye to how these can be adapted to the specific problems of chemistry teachers. Several speakers identified thecomputer as a neu'medium of instruction nnd attempted to describe how the characteristics of the computer make it more or less useful for different kinds ot' instructional tasks. Patiencr in drill and practice situations, rapid and errt,r.free ralrulatiun.; and handling ni textuitl or numeric data, ability to interact with students and take account of previous input from a student, graphics and animation, and ability to keep records and analyze large quantities of data were all mentioned as positive characteristics we ought to take advantage of. The main negative characteristic can be generalized as: the computer is not chemistry, and to learn chemistry one needs to do chemistry. According to'Stan Smith, "You can do simulated laboratory experiments on the computer, but that isn't real laboratory work: you can't do real laboratory work on a computer." And according to Derek Davenport, "But with the possible exception of the chemistry. . . of phosphors, beginning science
cannot be done on a TV monitor." Of course it is hard to do chemistry on a book, too, unless you burn it or take it to lab, and the same is true of most other media. Computers seem to be especially good a t teaching ideas and concepts and at manipulating symbols; they are less well suited to situations where real-life experience is necessary, except in the case where the experience is to be with handling a computer/instrument combination or with handling and manipulating symbols and ideas. Finally let's summarize the answers that were given to the four questions in the title of the symposium. Not everyone addressed the questions explicitly, but there was consensus. Joe Lagowski said, "Yes, Yes, Yes, NO!" and Derek Davenport said, "No, No, No," but then he qualified the first two no's as being for the wrong reasons in some cases. Actually these two responses were probably in much better agreement than a computer analysis of the symbols on the page would reveal. The consensus was stated by Stan Smith, "A computer is a tool: good teachers cannot be replaced by a computer." And so there was agreement that the answer to "Should computers replace. . .?" was a resounding no. But there was also agreement that we are nowhere near using that tool to its capacity. Perhaps the reason lies in a statement that Stan Smith made when he visited Allan Smith and Drexel University. "The world is overpopulated with programmers who can get the computer to do anything, but who don't know what they want it to do. The greatest limitation of the use of computers in education is the creativity of the people trying to use them." Literature Cited 111 Lagoushi, J. J.,J. C ~ M EDUC., . 60,529 119S.11. (2) Smith, S. G., J. CHEM. EDUC., 41,608 (1970). I31 Lowie..S..Gerhold. G.. Smith.S. G., Johnson. K. Jeffrey,and M0ore.J. W.,J.CHEm EDUC., 56,219 (19791. (4) Smith,S. G.,and Chsbay,R.,J.CHEM. EDuc.,54,688(19771. 151 Chabay,R.,snd Sm5th.S. G., J. CHEM. EDUC.,54,745 119771. (61 Csvin, C. S.,Cavin,E. O.,and Lagnushi,J.J.,J.CHEM. E ~ ~ c . , 5 5 . 6 0(19781, 2 17) Wiegem, K.E., and Smith. S. G.. J. CHEM. EDUC., 57.454!19801. (8) Smith,S. G., Ghesquiere,~.R.,andAuner,R. A., J. CHEM. E~uc.,51,243 (1914). (91 Moore, C.,Smith. S. G.,andAvner. R.A,, J. CHEM. EDUC. 57,196 (19M). (101 Francis. L. D.. J. CHEM. E~uc.,50,556 11973). 1111 Mwre, J. W.,snd Mo0re.E. A.,J. CHEM.EDUC.,60,563 (19831.
(121 Smith, A. L., "Suppase Every Freshman Owned s Microcomputer: Proceedings of tho IEEE CompCom Fa11'83 Conference. September 28,1983 (to he puhlishadl. I131 "On Selectings Microcomputer for 1MOFreshmenat Drexel: Drexel Micmcomputer Selection Committee Repoxt, submitted for publication in Colle@a Microcom-
Volume 61 Number 1 January 1984
35
