New Directions for General Chemistry Recommendations of the Task Force on the General Chemistry Curriculum Baird W. Lloyd Capital University, Columbus OH 43209 James N. Spencer Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster PA 17604
The 1989 "Report on the NSF Disciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Education" ( I ) called for the creation of Task Forces to implement broad curricular change in chemical education. These Task Forces were expected to 'develop materials, especially textual and related materials, for adoption a t colleges and universities and were to integrate a s much a s possible, both the essential elements and the exciting new frontiers of chemistry." I n response to this charge, the American Chemical Society's Division on Chemical Education formed a Task Force in 1990 for the revision of the general chemistry curriculum. The goal of this group was (andis) to make recommendations for alternative general chemistry curricula; to publicize the new materials through public presentations, publications, and workshops; to provide tested support materials; and to provide workshops for instructors who wish to learn how to implement the new curricular ideas. The Task Force has approached their charge from a multi-faceted perspective: that is, no single curriculum proposed will be adopted intact. The focus was to provide themes and patterns of directions for change along with written materials that have been tested. Individual departments may design courses from the materials that meet the needs of the populations they serve. In preparing +e guidelines and materials, the Task Force was guided by the history of curricular changes in the general chemistry course along with methodologies used by groups that were able to effect curricular reform in physics, mathematics, and engineering. Learning From History: The Course : At the beginning of the century the content of general chemistry was mainly descriptive inorganic chemistry. There were no unifying principles or themes on which the course was based. New discoveries, including the discovery of the neutron and the Dehye-Hiickel principle of strong electrolytes, gave chemists a theoretical basis on which to organize the course. General chemistry became a course focused on chemical principles. I n the 1950's new high school courses provided students with a stronger math and science background, and a second revolution in the teaching of general chemistry began. The course became more complex and had a n increasing dependency on mathematics. This second transformation was essentially complete by the 1970's and no major changes have occurred in the course since then (2). Those who taught general chemistry laboratory have, since the early 1900's, been wrestling with the problem of whether laboratory time should be spent in training stu-
206
Journal of Chemical Education
dents to learn to use instruments and standard procedures of analysis or in havinz students learn how to interpret data and how to ask &d answer testable scientific G e s tions (3).This debate continues today. I n many contemporary laboratory exercises the ability of a student to reproduce known values is taken a s evidence of understanding the principles involved (3). Such verification exueriments follow a well-structured uath and are often one-dimensional. Some innovative laboratory programs (3)seek to engage the student in scientific investigations that involve observation, data gathering, interpretation, and hypothesis formation. These less structured exercises allow varying degrees of student and teacher involvement. The forces that caused change in the past are still a t work today. The tremendous explosion in chemical knowledge and technology continuously alter the manner in which chemists do their work. At the same time, today's students are less intellectually adventurous and more joboriented than their predecessors. Brooks ( 4 ) offered a significant criticism of current curricular efforts for ignoring both the technology available and the issue of learner motivation. Computers have changed the way chemistry is done. Therefore. students should be taueht from the beeinning how to use computers to enhance and assist their learning. Allowing computers to perform the memory and computational skills would free students to perform more demanding intellectual problem solving. Brooks, also, points out the reality of motivation a s a determinant of learning. Students no longer willingly perform tedious tasks without the imuetus of understandine the relevance in the job a t hand. A third force that is shaping curriculum reform has its origins in our improved understanding of the processes bv which students learn. Research has d&onstr&ed the importance of actively involving students in the laboratow and lccture pans of thc murs,!.. .4+a result, students teacKing students (5, 6 , cooperative learning 17,, guldcd diswv-
-
-
11
II
I
The Task Force on the General Chemistrv,~~ Curriculum is oreparlng tor p~blcat on n S~mmer,1994, a monograpn tnal WI I mcl~oea report of the work of tne Task Force, a h story ot the general chemistry course, laboratory and textbooks; descriptions of current innovative curricula, and novel ways for teaching traditional topics: and suggestions for incorporating real problems into homework and assessment procedures. ~
~
~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~
11
I
ery (8), whole-class construction of knowledge (91,and teaching through (not with) demonstrations (10,ll) are examples of reforms that have been initiated in general chemistry courses. It is clear that the w a y teachers intera d with students and students interact with science is undergoing a significant change.
Learning from History: Curricular Reform People involved in the current efforts at reform can learn much from the experiences of those engaged in cumcular reform projects of the last few years. Some of the lessons learned include the following. Assess Early Do not foeus attention so completely on the design ofinnovative instructionthat vou reach the stage of full im~lementation hefore asking-the hndamrntal question: Ilow do u e assess the cllicncy of the mstenal~we have dcvrloprd" ~
~
Empower Teachers
-
Lastine curriculum innovations will come from those who teach general chrmistry. Thus. teacher.
