Chemical Education Today
Letters Taking Issue with “Chemistry Is Not a Laboratory Science” In a recent commentary entitled “Chemistry Is Not a Laboratory Science” (1), Stephen J. Hawkes contends that laboratory courses are not needed in the chemistry curriculum. I have to take issue with this article in many respects. I cannot accept the argument that non-majors do not benefit from lab courses, and that computer simulations can replace tradition laboratories. Are not these pre-med, pre-dental, and pre-pharmacy students going to be asked to work with their hands in their respective fields? Indeed they are, yet all too often some of the best of these students from my lecture course are unable to follow simple directions or accomplish some of the more menial hands-on tasks in lab. This is part of the reason why professional schools require chemistry lab courses. The fact that students learn valuable manipulative and visual–motor skills in the chemistry lab was actually pointed out by Hawkes, yet he goes on to disregard this because, as he puts it, labs can be irrelevant and they do not teach the scientific method or how chemical principles affect the universe. If a traditional lab experiment does not address appropriate objectives, how is a computer simulation of the same lab going to? It seems to me that it is better to advocate the development of problem-oriented labs that engage our students, as discussed recently by Jerry Mohrig (2), rather than eliminating the practice of chemistry because of time or budget restraints. And regarding irrelevancy, I must ask how the teaching of one’s discipline, even through the reproduction of standard procedures, can be considered irrelevant? On the contrary, I would argue that there is no better place to make chemistry come alive for our students than in the laboratory. And as student interest in chemistry continues to decline, we need to look for innovative ways to reverse this trend. I can still remember the feeling of accomplishment I had as an undergraduate following my successful completion of a three-step laboratory synthesis. Such a practical experience was part of the reason why this former pre-med student became a chemistry major. Today I often see the same excitement and interest generated within some of my own students, a majority of them being non-majors. On several occasions, some of the non-majors from my lab course have actually inquired about doing independent research with me. I highly doubt that a computer simulation will spark such interest. Literature Cited
The author replies: The manipulative and visual–motor skills that students may learn in a chemistry lab are not “valuable” enough to them to justify their time and effort. They have been learning such skills since babyhood, so the justification of a lab must specify what particular manipulative skills they will learn that are new to them, and consider how valuable they are. This has not been done, but the insistence on a lab for this objective requires it. In considering the usefulness of computer simulations, it is necessary to specify the objectives. I asserted that they will teach “interpretation and design of experiment” (as will problem-oriented labs if skillfully taught) and quoted the published evidence. I quoted McKeachie’s review of the literature showing that labs do not teach scientific method nor improve scientific attitude and added my own assertion that they do not assist understanding of the chemistry of the universe. It is irrelevant that computer simulations will not or may not teach these objectives any better. Chad Stephens’ observation that labs can spark enthusiasm for chemistry is contrary to McKeachie’s finding and to my own experience. Such a difference calls for further research, perhaps into what causes the different results under different teachers. However, students should not be encouraged to think of chemistry as an intellectual exercise in which a gifted teacher may spark an interest. It is better perceived as an essential basis for their disciplines. As such it has relevance quite different from anything we chemists are likely to think up for laboratory exercises or for research projects. Stephens’ suggestion that acquiring the ability to follow instructions is part of the reason why professional schools require chemistry lab courses indicates that he has a greater understanding of the reasoning of such schools than I have been able to acquire. It would be useful to reveal the source of his information and to discuss it more fully. He asks “how the teaching of one’s discipline…can be considered irrelevant”. Does his implication apply to the teaching of every discipline? I have never seen the relevance of the four years of Latin taught me in my adolescence by somebody whose discipline it was. To believe that one’s own discipline is relevant for an audience is self-serving unless supported by evidence. Stephen J. Hawkes Department of Chemistry Oregon State University Corvallis, OR, 97331-4003
[email protected] 1. Hawkes, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1257. 2. Mohrig, J. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1083. Chad E. Stephens Department of Chemistry Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303
[email protected] www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Vol. 82 No. 7 July 2005
•
Journal of Chemical Education
997
