The Perennial Problem of Course Content in a Growing Science1 JOHN E. CAVELTI Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania
A.
DISCUSSION of this sort presumably has as its aim the raising of questions rather than the settlement of problems. The former is easier, a t any rate, for most of us are willing to admit the problems, while few of us agree upon a particular solution of any one of them. Nor is this illogical, for teaching is a person to person relationship, and solutions of its problems are therefore many and various. I realize that I am merely trying to say things which a good many of us have talked over a great many times. It should be made clear a t the outset, however, that my teachiug experience has been exclusively in the small cultural college, a fact which inevitably controls the angle of view of whatever follows. As I look back on my own undergraduate work in chemistry, I am not sogreatly impressedbyimprovement in the way we teach nowadays, or by the finer laboratories in which we teach, or by our better textbooks, or by our pondering of objectives, as by the tremendous increase in the mass and bulk of the material to be taught. In the growth of our science in recent years, new knowledge and new theories have seldom displaced old. Chemistry is now too mature for that. Knowledge and understanding are continually being added, modifying previous views and enlarging them, and increasing the descriptive information available a t an appalling rate. Those of us who have been teaching for some years have grown more familiar with our subject, and have managed, more or less well, to incorporate new developments into our thinking. As a result, things which used to puzzle us now seem clear and simple, and we tend to get the notion that, presented in our own inimitable way, they must slip without friction into the thought stream of the student. If they had only been first presented to us with such crystalline lucidity! Well, they probably were. Lucidity is a product of experience on the part of the listener as well as oi ability on the part of the speaker. It is good exercise for us to think back to the things that used to seem difficult to us. Present-day students are not more mature than students of our day, or, on the average, more intelligent, or better prepared. Yet we have a much more complicated subject matter to present, and it is our job to see to it that they get a firm grasp of its outline and a clear understanding of its fundamentals. If we could assume that students would come to
college with better and better preparation, we could look forward to a degree of relief as a consequence. But no such assumption can be made. It is not my intention to add a few feeble personal lashes to the already well-castigated effigyof Chemistry in the Secoudary Schools. But in our discussions of methodology, and objectives, and examinational panaceas, have we not, perhaps, left out the most significant factor in the present status of secondary-school education- viz., the economic one? With salary levels as they are in most parts of the country, what young man with a normal ambition for the amenities of life and for a reasonably well-supported family, can direct himself enthusiastically into the secondary-school field? How many of us have recently advised an intelligent and personable student that high-school teaching was his proper field? In a country which has been able so splendidly to reward all sorts of amusers and gadgeteers, it certainly requires a double portion of the spirit of sacrifice to induce an able young man to take the vows of secondary-school poverty. Of course, there are many exceptions both of people, and schools, and localities, but, by and large, the condition of secondary-school teachiug seems to be less a matter for discussion, than a matter of observation on the economic front. There is no evidence of change for the better in the near future. The problem is thus one for the college teacher, and, the university man will mutter, for him, t o w e e i n g the kind of student he gets from the colleges. Consideration of i t leads one to suspect that the first need is a careful consideration of the content of the courses in the chemistry curriculum, with a view to simplification, emphasis on fundamentals in each course, and a real integration of courses so that the graduate will not only be familiar with developments in all important fields, but will also be confidently grounded in the fundamentals of the science. Many of us have assumed that if basically important items are stressed briefly in Course 1, and then again in Course 2, Course 3, and Course N, this repetition will assure h a t i o n in the student's mind. Senior comprehensive examinations too often show that this is not the case, even with some of our best students. May it not be better to cover less material in each course, but do what is done thoroughly enough so that subsequent repetition is unnecessary? One of the difficulties with such a program is that i t runs counter to the prevailing educational theory which demands a continual enticing interest in each day's presentation. But is a student whose flagging will Presented at the Round Table on the Problem of Teaching must be energized by daily shots of this kind of stimuChemistry, sponsored by the Division of Chemical Education at the 103rd meeting of the A. C. S.. Memphis, Tennessee,April 21. lant really interested in chemistry a t all? It is trite 1942. enough to say that the mastery of any subject involves
-
a proportion of inescapable drudgery, and that only the person willing to undergo i t has the necessary drive for success. But like so many trite sayings i t is also a true one. It is not our job to make chemistry factitiously interesting, but to present i t well, so that those whose natural bent lies in that direction will catch the interest which the subject inherently holds for them. There is no great fun either for us or for the student in that drill on fundamentals which makes them a permanent mental possession. But, on the other hand, there is no ultimate fun in chemistry for anyone who is uncertain in his approach to common chemical problems, unsure of the common typical reactions, unable to write an equation without the book a t hand, and doubtfulas to thecolor of ferric hydroxide. Werealize thedifficulties of the student who does not automatically know the operations of simple algebra, the handling of logarithms, or even the facts of the multiplication table. We ought to see to it that we do not send him forthiu asimilar state with regard to the fundamentals of chemistry. The average modem elementary chemistry textbook is to me a fearful and wonderful spectacle. It is almost always well and clearly written, and logically arranged, but i t contains practically everything in chemistry. To its original content of descriptive inorganic chemistry has now been added a sizable chunk of organic chemistry, the outline of physical chemistry, and the principal items of industrial chemistry, while its laboratory manual usually includes the scheme of qualitative analysis, and a number of quantitative procedures. To teach from such a book is fun, and the better students do, unquestionably, understand each item as i t arises. When they appear the next year in Course 2, however, their retention is often pitifully small. They are like people who have taken a rapid automobile trip through interesting country. Each feature of the scenery was appreciated a t the moment i t flashed past, but a t the end of the trip the principal residue is a vague feeling of enjoyment. Decisions as to the proper content of an elementary course are always difficult, and especially so in smaller institutions, where, of necessity, students with different aims must be taught together. Obviously, those things must be included which the student who will take no further courses in chemistry may reasonably be expected to need to know. For tbis reason the modern tendency to include a sketch of organic chemistry seems thoroughly desirable, although in courses intended specifically for chemistry majors it might well be omitted. For these students the real aim of the course should, i t seems to me, be such a grounding in fundamental theories and facts that the resulting knowledge can be relied upon to be there when we wish to build upon i t in the more advanced courses. I think most of us will agree that the basis of the course should be an exposition of the facts of atomic structure, rather than of the methods by which they were obtained, and the application of these facts, through the periodic system, to the chemical behavior of elements and compounds. We are fortunate, in chemistry, to have so powerful a co-
ordinating mechanism. In this regard the newer developments have simplified our task rather than complicated it. There will be no corresponding agreement as to topics which may be omitted. May I suggest the following as a few possible examples: 1. The balancing of oxidation-reduction equations, except in the case of the simplest direct electron-transfer types. If the time ordinarily consumed by tbis topic were used for drill in the simple equations, valences becoming a matter of instantaneous recollection, s&cient time could easily be saved in qualitative or quantitative courses to do a thorough job with the oxidation-reduction type there. Only extended drill will ever give real facility in writing these equations accurately--drill involving so many different examples that the memorizing of coefficients becomes obviously unprofitable. 2. Complicated examples of chemical equilibria, solubility products, and the like, most of which are fictitious anyway. If the principles are fixed in the mind by many examples of the simplest type, the work of advanced courses will again be so relieved that complexities can be adequately dealt with in them. 3. Calculations involving the normality concept. No student who does not proceed beyond the elementary course will ever have need for these. And how pleasant it would be for the instructor in quantitative analysis to be able to present the normality idea as a new procedure for simplifying calculations, rather than as a revival of an old puzzle. He could spend all the time necessary on the subject if he could rely on the student's retained ability to do simple gravimetric proportions as a matter of course. 4. All except brief reference, with no expectation of retention, to such topics as the application of X-rays to the determination of crystal structure, radioactive degradation series, methods of determining molecular weights (except direct applications of Avogadro's law, and perhaps freezing point depression), colloid chemistry, the meaning of electrode potentials, etc. We need an elementary course which is elementary, but intense, and which stresses descriptive inorganic chemistry to a greater extent than is now customary. It is more fun to teach theory, and it is not necessary to require the student to develop a memory like a memorandum book. But i t may be advisable to restrain ourselves a bit on the theoretical side, and make sure that the student acquires enough information about the appearance and properties of things to be able to think through simple chemical situations intelligently. It would be a pleasure to find a qnalitative class that did not have a vague collective idea that potassium iodide ought to be purple. The analytical courses are, perhaps, the least cluttered of any, though this may be true partly because so much of the apparatus required for the newer quantitative procedures is so outrageously expensive, so specific in its applications, and so subject to depreciation in student hands. In general, the items of theory
considered in these courses are those directly applicable to the lahoratory procedures. In this connection i t seems to me regrettable that the qualitative course is now so frequently compressed into the elementary. In no field of chemistry is it possible to correlate so closely a substantial hody of theory with things actually seen in the lahoratory. The course is well worth inclusion in any chemistry curriculum as a separate subject. Perhaps the most frequent sin we commit in the quantitative course is the assignment of peculiarly intricate problems before the calculations of simple gravimetric and volumetric determinations and standardizations have become automatic. It is rare, in an industrial laboratory, to find a recent college graduate who can make these simple calculations with the ease with which he could make change for a dollar hill. Yet he should he ahle to do so. Here, again, drill alone can produce the requisite facility, and this facility is of more importance than the ability to solve, with much strain, that peculiar kind of analytical problem in which the analyst is represented as proceeding from New York to Chicago via San Francisco and Alaska, traveling sometimes by ox team and sometimes by canal boat. It should he easily possible to teach all of the significant varieties of quantitative calculations by means of examples which the student can clearly see to represent situations which might actually arise in intelligently conducted analytical work. The astounding expansion of organic chemistry in recent years needs no comment. But, again, we must be careful to realize that there has been no comparable increase in the rate a t which the student can acquire permanently fixed information. Most of us probably have a two-year sequence of organic courses, and most of them are being packed too full. Some reasonable selection of topics for the 6rst course should be made, taking only as many as can be adequately covered, using many examples to illustrate each significant reaction. It may he necessary to exclude items the omission of which will make our hearts bleed, but it is less important to cover the entire field than i t is to have a satisfactory nucleus of information and understanding firmly fixed in the student's mind so that he becomes literate in the subject. There are hooks, and no one needs to he taught all he is ever going to know. For the second course in organic chemistry the present vogue of qualitative organic analysis unquestionably represents a distinct advance. Probably no other scheme is as effective as this for the acquisition, correlation, and use of a large hody of information in the organic field. The student's interest is aroused and maintained in a perfectly natural way, and, with good retention of information from the first course, he soon finds himself ahle to use his knowledge in a very satisfying fashion.
If, now, the fundamental basis of chemical understanding has been laid in the elementary course, the theory of solutions well set forth in the qualitative course, the theory of electrode potentials added in the quantitative course, and certain topics, such as the parachor, taken care of in the organic courses, a reasonably adequate treatment of physical chemistry will have been made possible. This is the course in which we are sinners all. There are so many enticing developments, in so many directions, about which we can hardly restrain ourselves from talking. Yet the fundamentals must f i s t be dealt with, and sufficient time assigned to them, and again we must learn to rely on the developing chemical literacy of the student. The question of the thermodynamic versus the kinetic approach is one which, I suppose, we have all struggled with. I think we need to keep in mind the fact that the rigorous beauty of the thermodynamic method is almost never apparent to the student who has no satisfying kinetic picture of the situation under consideration. For the liberal arts college, a t least, where it is usually impossible to give more than one course in physical chemistry, the kinetic approach, with its visualizahle mechanisms, is most effective. It should always he possible to include discussion of the fundamental thermodynamic quantities and their simpler relationships, hut the thorough treatment of thermodynamics may well he left to the graduate school. If we can see our way clear to some simplification in individual courses, coupled with a satisfactory integration between them, we shall not, I think, find that we are teaching less, hut that we are teaching better, and with more regard to the capabilities reasonably to he expected of the student. We may have to omit a few topics we should like to consider. We may sometimes experience that uncomfortable feeling which comes when a student returning from graduate school tells us gleefully of some great new development he has just heard of, and we, in self-justification, find ourselves saying, "Yes, John R. Doe started that a t X University five years ago." The student feels disappointed because he hoped he was the bearer of news, and he feels a hit let down because we knew about i t all the time hut hadn't told him. And we feel that he should have known we would have kept abreast of an important development like that. Maybe we shall have to put up with a bit of this kind of discomfort, but if we do a better job of teaching, we can afford to. I do not make these suggestions as one who has put them into practice. With regard to all criticisms here made, I avow myself a most miserable sinner. But I am conscious of a growing feelmg that I have been wrong. At all events this matter of actual course content is one a t least as worthy of our committee's attention as matters of method.
The protein in soybeans can he used for some of the purposes for which casein is ordinarily used. This should he of interest a t the present time when emer-
gency requirements of casein for edible purposes are curtailing other uses of casein. -LAUCKS
