Chemical Education Today edited by
From Past Issues
Kathryn R. Williams University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611
Teaching and Learning Chemistry by Richard E. Rice
As chemical educators, we may find some comfort in knowing that many of the same questions about teaching and learning that vex us today also vexed our predecessors. Looking back at discussions of pedagogy from an earlier time is not to seek specific answers but rather to see how others have answered such questions to their own satisfaction. One such discussion is “Importance of Teaching Chemistry,” an address delivered by Charles Munroe at the inaugural meeting of the District of Columbia Association of Chemistry Teachers in November 1924 and published in the January 1925 issue of JCE (1). The name Charles Edward Munroe (1849–1938) probably doesn’t trigger an immediate connection to chemical education. Instead, he’s more likely to be remembered as a charter member and president of the ACS or as an internationally known explosives expert (2). But he also taught chemistry for nearly half a century. After receiving his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from Harvard in 1871, Munroe spent three more years there as an assistant to Josiah Parsons Cooke and then twelve years as professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy. Following a six-year stint (1886–1892) at the Naval Torpedo Station in Newport, RI, he moved to Columbian University (now George Washington University) in Washington, DC, where he was a professor of chemistry, dean of the Corcoran Scientific School, and, later, dean of the Graduate School. Although he officially retired in 1917, he remained active in education and other projects related to chemistry almost until the end of his life in 1938. In his address to the DC teachers, Munroe listed six reasons for studying chemistry. For more than thirty years he welcomed each incoming class to George Washington University with his talk “Why Study Chemistry?”, a version of which appeared in School Science and Mathematics in 1924 (3). Munroe believed that these reasons applied as much to teaching chemistry as to learning it (1, p 67). 1. “For its economic value; that is as furnishing a means of livelihood.” Although Munroe found this “the least worthy motive,” he also recognized it as frequently the most important practical consideration. After noting many areas in which chemistry graduates then worked—from teaching to chemical industries and health care—he discussed at length the increasing importance of chemistry to manufacturing. For example, the production of steel had improved under the supervision of chemists from a set of empirical processes with a highly variable product, significant waste, and frequent accidents into an efficient and profitable business (3, pp 134–139). 2. “To enlarge one’s vocabulary.” The huge number of substances, their properties, and their myriad transformations require an extensive ter1292
Figure 1. Charles E. Munroe. Image courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Collection, University of Pennsylvania Library.
minology, which “must not only be used with precision but in such a manner and with such qualifications as to set forth all shades of gradations of properties and every degree of variation of phenomena.” The development and improved use of this vocabulary lead students “to clearer thinking and more lucid means of expression” (3, pp 139–140). Although Munroe didn’t have the late 20th century jargon, he was obviously talking about critical thinking. 3. “As a means of culture.” Studying chemistry “greatly widens our mental horizon and it makes the invisible apparent to our senses.” Besides developing powers of observation, logical thinking, and mathematical skills, training in chemistry “cultivates neatness, order, repose of manner and mental poise, for unless these qualities are exercised in experimental work the results will be of little or no value.” Munroe soared in his praise for such benefits from the study of chemistry. “In fact, I know of no better training for the development of executive ability…” As evidence, he mentioned two presidents of U.S. Steel trained in chemistry and seven eminent chemists who became university presidents, as well as the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of England, the first office held by Marcelin Berthelot, “a chemist by vocation; the second by Lord Salisbury, a chemist by avocation” (3, pp 140–141). 4. “As a means for improving the condition of mankind by ameliorating his environment.” Munroe regarded this as one of the most praiseworthy reasons for studying chemistry and lauded those so motivated. He referred to Ellen Richards’ application of continued on p 1294
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
From Past Issues continued from p 1292 chemistry to problems of the home and environment, the work of chemists for Boards of Health in finding sources of pollution, and chemical investigations into such topics as digestion and metabolism, food preservatives, improved crop production, and more effective medicines. These examples represented “but a very, very few of the notable instances in which chemistry is applied to the relief of [human beings]” (3, pp 141–142). 5. “Because we are completely subject to its laws and our lives depend, for every moment of our existence, upon the orderly progress of the many chemical reactions going on within, and without, our bodies, and also because every commercial transaction in which we may take part, except barter, is based upon a chemical analysis.” Munroe said little about this except that despite being surprising, it is absolutely true (3, p 142). 6. “One may study chemistry from patriotic motives, hoping to serve the nation’s needs both in peace and war.” Speaking just a few years after the end of World War I, Munroe said that the war had “taught much—and especially the immense importance of chemistry. We have heard this last war spoken of as a ‘Chemical War’…a war of explosives, poison gases, metals, fuels, and innumerable other substances having their origin in chemical independence…. History records the bitter needs of nations in great distress from lack of chemical preparedness…. Today we are attempting to impress upon our own country this same need for preparedness” (3, p 142).
Munroe offered the DC teachers a seventh reason: “Finally, we may study chemistry in the light of progress with the purpose of handing down to succeeding generations our inheritance together with our own contributions, ever remembering that progress is made by beginning where our predecessors left off.” He referred to this as a trust that we humans have because of our “gift not given to plants and animals—that of initiating and continuing the movement of civilization.” We have the ability not only to preserve past achievements, but also to use them in the present and pass them on, along with our own accomplishments, to the future. According to Munroe, this is “the greatest reason for studying chemistry—to be of the number who shall pass on to the coming generations that which was their heritage and with much added thereto” (3, pp 142–144). In addressing the DC teachers, Munroe admitted his failure to tell students of yet another benefit of studying chemistry. “I did not dwell, as I should, on its tendency to develop the truly judicial mind, meaning by this the open mind; the tolerant mind; the reasonable mind.” Exactly the kind of mind required by chemists, it “takes all available facts and conditions into consideration in reaching a conclusion,” but is always ready to reconsider that conclusion in light of new evidence. “Chemistry is in a continual state of flux, new facts, new data, new points of view, new theories, being con1294
tinually developed to modify and replace the old.” Munroe emphasized the responsibility of all teachers to “impress… upon their students that while chemistry consists of an enormous assemblage of data, descriptive matter, and theories, all are to be regarded as but approximations to the truth, and that the true chemist stands ready at any time to accept changes in data and descriptions, and modifications in theories, when sufficient evidence is adduced” (1, pp 67–68). Munroe believed that this attitude is readily found in the history of chemistry. This was his rationale for introducing historical material “little by little throughout a course, the better to enliven the topic, hold the student’s interest and fix the attitude sought.” In this context, Munroe also included biography, so “the student may know something of the masters, other than their names, and realize that they were human and fallible as we are. Thus, when dealing with the Periodic Tables, one may properly and profitably introduce some brief characterizations of Chancourtois, Newlands, Mendelejeff and Lothar Meyer, for instance” (1, p 68). Teachers with a knowledge of past accomplishments in chemistry would better recognize and appreciate “new discoveries, determinations, characteristics, relations, and applications; the development of new hypotheses and theories; and the verifications which tend to transfer theories to the category of laws…” Such teachers should also be able to “present the new material in such a manner as to be assimilated by the novice in fairly accurate and intelligent form” (1, p 69). Obviously, Munroe had thought a great deal about teaching and learning chemistry. Although we may dismiss some of his reasons and discussion as quaint or naïve or unsuitable for students today, Munroe viewed them as satisfactory for students in the early 20th century. His thoughtfulness ought to motivate us to be sure that we can offer our students satisfactory reasons for studying chemistry at the beginning of the 21st century. While the times have changed dramatically since Munroe’s addresses in the 1920s, as have students and the various demands on their time and energy, our basic job hasn’t. We face the same questions in teaching and learning that Munroe and the thousands of other chemical educators who have preceded us have also faced. Although some of his answers are tied to a time gone by, Munroe’s message to us about teaching and learning is timeless. Literature Cited 1. Munroe, C. E. J. Chem. Educ., 1925, 2, 67. 2. Browne, C. A., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1939, 61, 1301; Rice R. E. “Charles Edward Munroe,” in American National Biography, J. A. Garraty and M. C. Carnes Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, 1999, Vol. 16, 102. 3. Munroe, C. E. School Sci. Math., 1924, 24, 134.
Richard E. Rice was formerly in the General Education Program, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807. His present address is P.O. Box 1201, Florence, MT 59833;
[email protected].
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
