THE NEW INTRODUCTORY CHEMISTRY. PART I
The author has spent most of his time during the last six years in the development of an introductory chemistry course designed to satisfy the needs for nou-technical students, and to furnish a proper background for technical students. The purpose of this article i s to set forth the prinples which guided the author in working out this course. The Need for a New Type of Introductory Chemistry James Harvey Robinson, in his stimulating book, "The Humanizing of Knowledge," has pointed out the necessity of humanizing knowledge if continued progress is to be made in the pursuit of knowledge. He has pointed out many of the difficulties in the way of this. Among these difficulties he mentions that of specialization, which is indeed a great problem in this age of specialists, concerning which he says in part: I n the enterprise of humanizing khowledge, i t is necessary first t o recognize that specialization, SO essential in research, is pnt,ting us on the wrong track in education. This has been suspected for some time.
In addition to the evils resulting from giving technical courses to nontechnical students, Stephen Rich' lists some of the misconceptions of chemistry teachers as follows: 1. The lxlirf thar rhc chief actual or desirable outcome of chemical instruction i5 a "general training." n "dmipline," a set of "general abihties." such as those labeled "to observe accurately," "to draw correct or reasonable conclusions," and the like. This doctrine is neither more nor less than a belated survival from pre-scientific psychology. 2. Covering a logical outline as a whole. 3. We are teaching the subject rather than the pupil. 4. That the first-year course in chemistry, whether taught in high school or taught in college, is only an introductory course, t o be followed by other specialized courses. 5. That of thinking that chemistry is essentially a mass of information. The remedy which I propose for this situation is that the high-school chemistry course should be revised with the basal idea that those who take it are not going t o study more chemistry, that they are not going t o be chemists, and that their specific needs should be met. It is certain that the existing courses do not meet their needs.
.
"Some Misconceptions of Chemical Education," THS JOURNAL, 2, 142--5 (Feb., : 1925).
VoL. 6. NO. 10
CHEMICAL DIGEST
1809
Leonard Koos,%has shown that high-school and college chemistry courses resemble each other much more than they differ, and that the average college general chemistry course is largely a repetition of the usual highschool course. S. R. Powers,3 in an abstract of this article, says: This study affords a factual basis for the statement that the high-school course in chemistry is but an abbreviated college course.
Stuhbs4says: 1. Highschool chemistry is still too much under the influence of the college and the benefits of such dominance are outweighed by the defects. 2. Present-day methods often aim t o turn out chemists rather than intelligent citizens who are appreciative of chemistry.
He believes that the second objection may be overcome by selecting subject matter as follows: 1. Only matter socially worthwhile. 2. Only topics that follow native interests of boy or girl. 3. Only matter which lends itself t o the following general aims: appreciation of mmmanplace environment, new knowledge applicable t o various fields of human endeavor, and training in scientific thinking.
Powers6says: Each of the tests of subject matter points t o the conclusion that a large proportion of the content of high-school chemistry is of Little or no value for many who study it.
Mr. Morgan5says:
+
If i t is worthwhile t o seek to place the responsibility for the situation found t o exist in the teaching of high-school chemistry, we may ask-who trains the teachers? Who writes the textbooks used? Who compiled "The Standard Minimum High-School Who makes up the college entrance Examination Board tests? Course in Chemistry!" The answers to all of these questions are much the same. College teachers cannot escape a large portion of responsibility for the content of high-school courses in chemistry.
Since high-school chemistry courses are largely abbreviated college chemistry courses, the inference is strongly suggested that the content of many of our college chemistry courses is of little or no value to many who study them. Charles Stone6 says that the time has come "whed the rights of the ninety per cent must he more fully realized." "Overlapping in High School and College," J. Educ. Res., 11, 32236 (1925). T m s JOURNAL, 2,79%8@2 (Sept., 1925). 4 "The Place and Problem 'of Chemistry in the High-School Curriculum," Sch. Sci. MaNz, 27, 741-8 (1927). 6 Symposium: "What Are Our Objectives in Teaching Chemistry?" THIS JOURNAL,2, 971-5 (Nov., 1925). 6 "The High-School Chemistry Course versus the College Requirement." Ibid., 1, 55-8 (Jan., 1925). 2
a
What are the rights of the n i n e t y per cent of those students who take high-school chemistry and the large number of college students w h o take general chemistry as their only course in c h e m i s t r y ? H. R. Smith7 gives the objectives in teaching chemistry as follows: 1. T o bring about as s w n as possible the pupil's appreciation of training in scieutifie method and chemical knowledge. 2. To teach pupils the understanding and use of the scientific method of solving problems. 3. The correlation of facts t o build a unit of knowledge (a principle or law). 4. The spplication of principles and laws t o new situations in the solving of daily problems (vocational and leisure time education). 5. Cobperation in community groups t o promote human welfare. 6. The development of moral law and religious attitude in daily life.
J. 0. Franks summarizes the
o b j e c t i v e i of
h;gh-school chemistry as
follows:
.. .getting pupils to comprehend ideas, t o think chemistry in terms of the systematic organization of the subject matter, and the fusion of all the facts, laws, principles, and concepts, together with their innumerable applications into a complete subject, will he the main job of the teacher.. . .A good course in chemistry should leave the pupil with a strong desire to go further with the subject. Arthur H. Bathes has s h o w n that: The practical or useful side of high-school chemistry is not sufficiently stressed in our high-school texts, and that the ayerage bigh-school chemistry textbook now in use is not adapted to the capacities, interests, and needs of the secondary school pupil.
J. E. Belllo says: That the public is grossly ignorant of chemistry and the value of chemical knowle d ~ in e the solution of public problems needs no argument before a body of this kind. This ignorance exists among educated people, among men of affairs, and among most of those who a t the present time comprise our leaders in society and mold public opinion. I t is important, therefore, that we take steps to dispel this ignorance. We should see to it that it does not exist among our future leaders, that we plan this course with these future leadine- citizens definitelv in mind. They are more to be considered than thc ones who are to specialize i n chemistry. Any false notions or any deficiencies in the preparation of the mecialist, there will be amole t o correct: but the impression the one. oooortunitv .. course man carries awa9 is likely t o be retained for life. Will he go with the feeling. even though unexpressed, "I certainly did a lot of cramming in that course, and I ' m glad it's over with. What does it all mean anyhow?' Or can he be made t o feel, "An interesting subject. It gives me a clue to the explanation of a lot of things. I'd like to inquire further into some of them."
' THISJOURNAL,2. 585-7
(July, 1925). "The Objectives of High-School Chemistry." Ibid., 2.53-7 (Jan., 1925). '"An Analysis of High-School Teats in Chemistry," Ibid., 2, 785-91 (Sept., 1925). '0 Symposium: "What Are Our ObjecOives in Teaching Chemistry?" Ibid., 2,977 (Nov., 1925). 8
It is evident, then, that the present courses in chemistry for non-technical students in high schools and colleges are failing. Many leading educators are gradually amving at the conclusion that specialization is the business of the graduate college, and that it should begin about the junior year in college. High-school and junior college courses are gradually developing into survey courses whose purpose is To enable our youth to realize what it means to live in society, to appreciate how people have lived, and to understand the condition essential t o living together well, to the end that our youth may develop such abilities, inclinations, and ideals as may qualify them t o take an intelligent and effectivepart in an evolving society."
I t will be of interest to see what some of our leaders who are working on this problem suggest as a solution. Walter Jackson12 says: Either the high-schwl course, the college course, or both, must change. I believe we will agree that it is the duty of the high school to do most of the reorganizing, with the help and sympathy of the colleges. Certainly we will agree that onr high-school course has been merely a vest-pocket edition of the college course. If the college was the first on the ground, and it certainly was in chemistry, then it is largely up to the highschool man to find his place.. . . So far, we have been largely destructive. Let us see if we can give some constructive suggestions. I n the first place, we feel that the high-school chemistry course should he an inclusive unit within itself and not be dependent upon being capped offa t some future period with a college course. The course should be so arranged that the pupil rill h a w brcn givm valuahlc training. viewpint\ and information when he fini\hcs, whether he ever goes to eollcpc or not. FurthermAru, the eoursc should be su raluahle that the pupil who does go to college will have had in high school a course that will never he repeated in college, and he can feel that he has something that no college course will ever give him, just as the college course offers something that the high school should never try to give.. . . I propose that the high-school chemistry course shall he an intensive appreciation course. Don't pass judgment too quickly on a novel idea. Much will have to he learned in order to appreciate. If all of our high-school chemistry students will leave school with some idea of the magnitude of the service of chemistry to our nation, then I feel that we will prosper as we have never prospered before. When the high-school p u p i l s t h e massesrealize that it is possible for the chemist to take a waste material like coal tar, and a disagreeable one a t that, and produce from it all the hues of the flowers that made the coal, along with their original fragrance, the healing properties of the roots and herbs, the flavors sought t h e world over by mankind, the sweetness that makes sugar taste like a washed-out syrup, the power that will actually do deeds that my friends, we have would make Hercules bow down as a humble servant-then, pupils who can, to some extent, appreciate the word chemistry. They will never know all about how all these things are d o n e n o , never; hut they will have a faith and belief that will cause them all their lives to give unto the chemist the things that belong to chemistry.
"
.
Preliminam reD0rt . of the Toint Commission on the "Pumose of Social Solution Studies in Our Schwls." "What Sort of Chemistry Should Be Taught in the High School?" THISJOURNAL, 4, 5 W 5 Uan., 1927).
How can this appreciation be brought about? I would suggest as wide reading as possible on each topic that is brought up for class discussion. As many contacts ss the pupil can make with his everyday surroundings and readings will impress and reimpress him with the importance and unity of this subject. With entertaining books like "Creative Chemistrv." "Chemistry in Industry." and others that may easily be had. with magazines each week and month, publishing articles that are both instructive and entertaining, with hundreds of industrial concerns publishing and giving away material that is useful in this way, with all of this, and a little guidance from the teacher, it should be easy enough far the pupil t o understand and appreciate some of the workings of chemistry. When a pupil finds that m o d industries are chemically controlled; when he finds out that the chemical industries are housed in huge factories and not in test tubes and that they turn out their products by the hundreds of tons; and when he finds that all d the fact that the chemof this eoes - into our evervdav . . l i f e t h e n will the ~. - u abbreciate .. ist is not a pill pounder, but a creator. When this appreciation is built up among the masses that never go t o college, then a new day will dawn far the chemist who does finish his education, for the good of each group, the whole nation, and posterity t o come. This appreciation course will be of definite value t o the individual. He will have one mare contact with the world through which a more abundant life can flow to himself. He can find recreation in reading intelligently a wider variety of material. His mind has been broadened. He may not know all the details-but he does know that they exist.
Dr. Edwin Slosson has said: Science teachers in the secondary schools occupy a strategic position far intluencing the thought of the nation. They give all the instruction that most of the people ever get and they have the first chance a t those who go on to the university. Upon such teachers, therefore, m t s the responsibility of presenting science in the beginning in its integral and humanistic aspects. I venture toBay that such a presentation gives the best foundation for future specialization and abstraction.
By "secondary schools," Dr. Slosson would undoubtedly agree that he meant the junior college as well as the high school. W. D. BancroftLshas expressed the need for a new type of course as follows: The universities have two functions in the teaching of the sciences. They should teach a science as a professional study and as a cultural study. I n the case of chemistry, the universities teach chemistry fairly well as a professional subject for the chemists, the medical men, the biologists, the engineers, etc. So far as I know, there is no university which now teaches chemistry as a cultural s t u d y a s a part of a general education. In almost all places the unfortunate student who would like t o learn something about chemistry is forced to take the introductory or freshman course in chemistry. This is, and must necessarily be, entirely unsatisfactory. Freshman chemistry is avowedly and properly a professional course. I t leads up t o qualitative and quantitative analysis, t o organic chemistry, to physical chemistry, and to other advanced courses in chemistry and medicine. The course in general chemistry does not cover enough ground t o be of real value t o the student seeking a general education and it goes into far too much detail for him. The better it is as a professional course, the worse i t is as a cultural course.. . . '"'Pandemic
Chemistry," THISJOURNAL, 3,396-8 (APT., 1926).
VOL.6. No. 10
CHEMICAL DIGEST
1813
Since chemistry is the fundamental science, the one which we are always encountering in some form and in some place, it is particularly desirable that everybody should have some knowledge of chemistry; and yet the teaching chemists do nothing t o make this possible. We have nobody but ourselves t o thank for it. The chemists complain, and very properly, that the business men and the bankers are deplorably ignorant of chemistry; hut the chemists provide no way for the prospective business man t o get even the rudimentary knowledge of chemistry as a whole. What we need as a cultural course in chemistry is a course which will cover all the ground in chemistry given in the universities without going into too much detail. This means a series of popular lectures covering the whole field of chemistry as well as it can he done in the time. I urge the giying of a c o m e of this sort, primarily for the benefit of the man who is expecting not t o go on in chemistry. This course will he called pandemic chemistry (pandemicof, or pertaining to, all the people). Almost all chemists are agreed that such a course should he given, hut the difficulty is t o decide just what ground it should cover. The proposed course in pandemic chemistry is interesting from inother viewpoint. Since most of the students in the public schools do not go to college, i t would he much better for them to have a course in pandemic chemistry rather than the introductory course which they now have. Before that can come to pass we shall have t o have a textbook far the students t o study; we shall have t o have teachers competent t o give instruction in the subject; and we shall have t o educate the colleges to the paint of accepting this work for college entrance. This will take much time, although a textbook must he written a t once for the benefit of the college student. It is merely a question of time, however, when this reform will go through the schools and in the colleges. When that time comes, people will wonder why it was not done before.
Neil E. Gordon" also expresses the need for a course of this kind in the following words: Many teachers of chemistry have too long made oftheir beloved science a sort of sacred cow. To vary the metaphor, we have constructed a'~rocrusteancouch which fits few students, but which every student must be made t o fit. We have tau& a subject rather than students. Perhaps that is a harsh way of putting it. Courses in chemistry were first evolved for the benefit of those who desired t o devote their lives t o science, or for others who possessed what we may call the truly scholarly turn of mind. Chemistry has been taught, in the main, by men who belonged to one of those two classes. It is only natural that the original tradition should have persisted. We are now faced by the fact, however, that many of our students have not the scholarly turn of mind and that many of them are preparing for work t o which chemistry has no direct relation. We are called upon t o adopt a new point of departure-to ask ourselves what chemistry can be made interesting and useful to the students with whom we have to deal rather than how a preconstructed system can he hammered into all comers.. . The average chemistry course of today does not sufficiently prepare the student to understand the everyday world about him. Certainly, it does not give him the knowledge necessary t o any intelligent interest in the further development of science. Nearly all of our textbooks include "practical applications," hut these are thrown in as afterthoughts-at any rate, as entirely secondary t o the serious matters of formal chemistry. And there is toa great a hiatus between the point where we drop the student and the
.
point where new developments are taking place. The first of those defects calls for a re-arrangement of subject matter and a shifting of emphasis; the second calls for a more extended and hence, t o some extent, more superficial or a more selective treatment, or both.
James F. Norris" says: In my . iudpmcnt, the selection of the content of the course in chemistry to be followed by the college student as a part of a liberal educationshouldnot be influenced by a desire to plan the work as a preparation for the subsequent education of the specialist in the science. This error has been made frequently.
The Principles Which Have Guided Us in the Selection of the Content of a Course in the New Type of Introductory Chemistry 1 . Chemistry must be presented from the viewpoint of semice.
To quote Robinson (The Humanizing of Knowledge) again, an appreciation course should "be so ordered and presented in school and college as to produce permanent effects and attitudes of mind appropriate to our time and its perplexities." Herbert R. SmithI6 says: In the vocation of teaching, the foremost objective t o hc recognized is that the wclfare and interests of the pupil are paramount.
In another communication, the same author" says: I t is over six yean since a committee of the National Educational Association recommended in the reorganization of secondary schmls that subjects he taught from the standpoint of their service in life, rather than from the academic arrangement according to logical sequence for the subject's sake. Not much heed has yet been paid to this advice by the teachers of any subject. In chemistry some promising titles have appeared on the covers of textbooks, hut a perusal of the contents brings out the fact that the title is chiefly advertisement.
Caldwell'8 says: The best education for young people of secondary school age should be best for them whether they go to college or not.. . . There does not seem to he a need of any reduction in quantity of learning in any special science subject; indeed, it seems likely that the quantity of learning is being considerably increased.. . . Are the science men, the specialists, really willing t o have their subjects changed for the larger usefulness? Science courses for all the people must help all the people to interpret science for service, not science for power. Service, not power to control, is the needed spirit of modern science instructors. l6
THISJOURNAL. 4, 1404 (Nov., 1927).
" Ibid., 2, 991 (Nov., 1925).
Ibid., 3, 565-7 (May, 1926). "Service, The Needed Spirit of Modern Science Instructors," School Life, 10, 85-7 (1925). l7
'8
VOL.6, No. 10
CHEMICAL DIGEST
1815
G. W. Hunterl%hows that the modern tendency in science teaching is really teaching how to live. Herbert R. Smith2' says: Now, education can he made more attractive and still be dignified. I t is not a t all necessary to cater to the whims of pupils, but if teaching is to be effediue, it mrcrt be taught i n krms of the subjecl's service lo mankind.
In the well-known definition of objectives of secondary education given in the Cardinal Principles of Secondary E d u c a t i ~ n , first ~ ' place was given to the health objective. 2. Cognate to the idea of service i s the emphasis on the applications of chemistry. Gatesz2states: For two reasons. wc may expect a xreater transfer to the activities of daily life from subject maurr rltich i, itself rlircutlv urrful in ,ituatinn< commonlv cncuuntrred outside of rcho,,l. First. in onlcr to deal with thr situation in lifc, we need to know thc facts involved. Second, the transfer of methods of attack, poise, devices of learning, habits or ideals of caution, accuracy, thoroughness, or initiative to the situations in life will he great to the degree that the subject matter of the classroom is identical with that used in situations which life offers.
Raymond OshorneZ3has given many valuable suggestions which have guided us in the organization of a new type of introductory chemistry course. He summarized his article as follows: ?
First: Make the application side of chemistry, its connections to industry, to manu-
newer books written t o popularize chemistry, stimulating in style, and yet based on sound sciencc. Second; Reduce the number of isolated topics which the pupil must learn by dcveloping a number of new units or topics which will organize naturally and psycholagically some of the information now scattered under various elements in isolatedparagraphs. Third: Cut out certain topics and increase the amount of attention given to others. Fourth: Tonics worthv of attention should be presented fully enough to make a real impression. Establish relationships and connections so that the necessary organization by the pupil will be easy and natural, stimulating rather than destroying interest. In Tnrs JounNaL, 2, 709 (Aug., 1925). 2""The Response of High-School Pupils t o Chemical Education," Ibid., 1, 12-6 (Jan.. 1924). 2' U. S. Bureau of Education, Bullelin No. 35 (1918). 2' "Psychology for Students of Education," 37-72. "Some Suggestions for Modifying the Content of High-School Chemistry to Better Serve the Purposes of a Liberal Education," THIS JOURNAL. 2, 7 3 7 4 2 (Sept., 1925).
3. The scienti$c method must be emfihasized.
To
Mr. Morgan5 again:
John Dewey, one of the greatest educators the world has produced, has repeatedly stated that science offers nothing so valuable t o mankind as a knowledge and appreciation of the scientific method. In one of the most significant books ("The Mind in the Making") that have been published in recent years, J a m e s Harvey Robinson maintains that rational thinking (or the scientific method) has contributed more to the advancement of mankind than all other human effortsput together, and that nothing is now so important in education as a knowledge of its past accomplishments and future possibilities. Yet in the report of "A Standard Minimum High-School Course in Chemistry" there is no mention of the scientific method. Apparently, "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country."
Many teachers have salved their consciences with the thought that those students who were taking their technical course in chemistry, but were not going to continue in any work requiring this technical knowledge, would a t least gain the scientific habit of thought. This specious argument has been advanced time after time, and yet these teachers know that a course in debating or mathematics would probably give just as good training in the scientific method. The fact that our high schools have failed so signally in teaching the scientific method, using the abbreviated college general chemistry course, leads one to conclude that we have been expecting too much of the usual college course along this line. Unless a conscious effort is made in our textbooks, little will be accomplished in teaching the scientific method. Q Dr. F. D. Curtisz4has shown that definite instruction in scientific attitudes is essential to an adequate training in scientific attitudes, and that it will not come by mere science reading. For that reason, we have devoted a large part of Book I to a study of the development and characteristics of the scientific method. In the latter part of Book I, we have also tried to show how the scientist gains his information, by presenting the facts concerning the nature of the states of matter, following this with the explanation, and repeating this plan with the study of the nature of chemical reactions and its explanation, the nature of the elements, and its explanation, etc. Some one asked us why we devoted so much space to the study of the scientific method in our study of the particular science, chemistry. He was satisfied when we stated that a fair knowledge of what science is must be obtained before the student is in a position to undertake the study of any one of the divisions of science in an intelligent way; and that, since the student has not been given this understanding previously, it is left for us to do it. 24
"Investigations in the Teaching of Science," 112-6.
VOL. 6. No. 10
CHEMICAL DIGEST
1817
One course in chemistry will never give much training in the scientific method, but if properly presented, i t will give an appreciation of the value of scientific training, which will lead to future courses that will afford such training. Too often the present first courses in chemistry merely breed an everlasting hatred of science in general. Speaking of high-school laboratory experiments, Herbert R. Smithzs says that the illustrative type, individual and general, is unquestionably the most in vogue a t present. The same thing may be said for the usual general chemistry experiments. No wonder students learn little of the scientific method in the first course. 4. A broad unified view of chemistry must be $resented. Accordingly, we take Bancroft'sZ6definition of chemistry as the science which deals with all properties and all changes that depend on the nature of the substances concerned. On the basis of this definition, Dr. Bancroft then points out that everything, except the law of gravitation, the laws of motion, and a few abstract formulations, that give life and interest to physics, is chemistry. He shows that engineering, biology, curative medicine, and geology are really sub-divisions of chemistry. H. R. Smithz7says: Chemistry is the servant of many other sciences: mineralogy, dietetics, agriculture, entomology, medicine, sanitation, as well as production manufacturing. It is intimately related to industry, to commerce, to the community, and the home. When the student senses these ties of the subject, he begins to see ii as capable of making transformations and working scientific wonders as marvelous as ever alchemists dreamed of. *'
5. A @roperbalance of theory and a$$lication i s essential lo an a@$reciation of chemistry. We have allowed our revolutionary tendencies free play in the organization and presentation of this new type of introductory chemistry. On the other hand, we have appreciated the word of caution given by Neil E. Gordon in his editorial on "The New C h e m i ~ t r y , "and ~ ~ have pro.6ided for almost all of the "Minimum Essentials" and many of the snpplementary topics drawn up by the Committee on Chemical Education appointed by the American Chemical S o ~ i e t y . This ~ ~ course organizes the material differently, but otherwise contains all of the material given in the outline for a high-school chemistry course, based on the students' viewpoint, by C ~ r r i e r except . ~ ~ chemical calculations (which are entirely unnecessary). 25 "The Laboratory Study of Chemistry," THIS JOURNAL, 2 , 2 3 1 4 (Apr., 1925). "The Field far Chemists," National Research Co,mcil Vocational Bulletin.
" T ~ rJOURNAL, s 3, 104 (Feb., 1925). &d_, 4, 9 4 1 4 (Aug., 1927). 4,[640-56 (May, 1927). :o Itid.. 2, 113-8 (Feb., 1925).
2P Ibid.,
Of the fundamentals of the subject matter of chemistry listed by Mr. R. W. Osborne3' in a report on this topic, this course providesfor every one the 42 applications; for 9 out of the 11 types of chemical change; for 14 out of the 16 theoretical topics; and for 9 out of the 13 laws. We have attempted to outline a course which, in Dr. Gordon's words, "shall tell what chemistry has done and is doing, but which shall not neglect an explanation of how it is done." It would seem to be impossible to give an adequate appreciation of chemistry without giving at least a minimum understanding of the principles and methods of chemistry.
" "Investigations in the Teaching of Science," 145-8.
