The Varied Objectives in Service Courses in General Chemistry1 B. CLIFFORD HENDRICKS University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska OME time ago a set of objectives was compiledZ which . was approved by a representative group of college teachers of chemistry. This approval was probably given in the hope that such objectives, when achieved, would lead to successful work on the part of students in subsequent courses. Such an assumption, that success in one course is indicated by a good record in a subsequent one, is erroneous in a t least two particulars. It overlooks the fact that probably more than fifty per cent of these students in service courses will never take any more chemistry, and second, it assumes the doubtful inference that the greatest general good for this group of students comes from remembering and understanding the technical intricacies of general chemistry. It is with this second assumption that the professional schools take issue. It is a reasonable estimate that fifty per cent of the colleges in which service courses in chemistry are offered make that offering in segregated groups. When staff members of the professional schools are asked to state the advantages of such segregation the answer is commonly made that by this plan chemistry is made to apply to the student's field of interest. Selection of that which applies to a particular field of interest in effect modifies the objectives of a course, both as to subject matter and extent of emphasis. This same practical modification of the aims of general chemistry for pre-professional groups is also implied in many of the textbooks offered for pre-nursing, premedical, and home economics students. Professional schools are really quite serious in their endeavor to have the chemistry taught their stndents contribute to professional success rather than to high attainment in pure chemistry. There are two current methods of recognizing these varied objectives sought by professional leaders. The first is that of segregation, thereby providing a group for each different interest. This plan may be operated so that instruction is organized in the department of chemistry or the course may be removed to the professional school's curriculum. On the other hand, a sizable proportion of the colleges and universities try to serve these groups by having them all together with no administrative recognition of the different uses to which they will put their chemistry. This last plan would probably have the approval of a majority of
S
'
Presented at the Round Table on the Problem of Teaching Chemistry, sponsored by the Division of Chemical Education at the 103rd meeting of the A. C. S., Memphis. Tennessee, April 21, 10d9 A"-.
'SMITH,"Accepted objectives in teaching general college E~nc.,12, 1803 (1933). chemistry," J. CHEM.
teachers of college chemistry. Their argument would, no doubt, agree with two statements made by men in professional schools whose stndents were being serviced by such a general course in chemistry. One said, "The principles of chemistry do not vary with professional interest," and the other, "Why is application important in first-year chemistry?" There is no doubt that trying to meet the problem by what might be called "the composite grouping" has its attractions both to the admimistrator and the snpervising teacher. For the first, establishing fewer units to be instructed decreases the cost of instruction in salary, housing, and equipment cost. By emphasizing principles of chemistry, class groups, ten or twenty or more, can be regimented into a lock-step program of class and laboratory assignments, easy to direct by a division overseer. But such a plan leaves entirely to chance any attention to the chemistry that may pertain to the student's field of interest. Up to this point one very important party has not been explicitly considered-the student. The objectives of the chemistry teacher have been noted and the professional school's dissatisfaction with the service rendered the student by his school. But the person most concerned has not been heard from. He does have a say, however, before the year's records are filed. His indifference in class and lecture room, his cookbook laboratory performances, and his mediocre attainment in terms of grades are, in all probability, his protests against a system of instruction which gives him no share in its selection and organization. After all, what difference does it make, anyway? What is the difference between cooperative participation and perfunctory compliance on the part of a student in his school work? When he shares in choosing his desired objectives and helps plan for their accomplishment there will be a sense of responsibility on his part and a consequent greater industry directed toward the achievement of the ends sought. Then, too, learning is a dynamic process of relating the desired new and unfamiliar to the exfierienced old. The principles of chemistry, or any other science, are merely the important generalizations. Generalizations are arrived a t from particulars. Popular belief notwithstanding, applications, i. e., particulars, precede principles in the learning process. Principles which are understood involve applications, either in their genesis or in their environmental meaning. Thus is answered the question, "Why applications in first-year chemistry?" Unless there are applications it is meaningless. A most certain index of one's knowledge of anything is the extent to which he uses i t in his daily activities. Thus
the classroom teacher soon discovers that, basically, professional interest necessitate teachers who are prethe staff of the professional school, in asking for "ap- pared both in chemistry and in the various professions? plication within the field of interest," is requesting that The writer knows of an introductory course in bacwhich the alert teacher desires. Successful teaching teriology in which all groups are together for lectures requires desire for that taught on the part of the student but the laboratory groups are divided according to and the incorporation of the new into his experience. professional interests. Would such a plan have value This is achieved by application within the field of in chemistry? interest. Another suggestion is that the course be offered with its sole purpose that of providing chemistry's contribuThe problem then is this: Given seven or eight tion to a general education. Such a plan, it is claimed, groups, such as premedical, predental, pre-nursing, would achieve the application of chemical principles technicians, pharmacists, and engineers, with as many within the experience of its students and thus attain "fields of interest"; can these students attain a workmotivation of student interest and background for ing understanding of some of the essential principles of later professional growth. chemistry, with especial reference to their particular Whatever the solution may be, most of our teachers fields of interest-without segregation? of general chemistry in institutions of any size are aware In those institutions where segregation upon the of the teaching problems presented by these service basis of professional interest is practiced, have the re- courses in chemistry. When a teacher discovers that sults justified the added administrative and financial 95 per cent of his students are not interested in chemburden? From the standpoint of the success of a istry for its owmake, but for what chemistry can do for course, is not "ability grouping" more useful than pro- his profession, he begins to understand the inmerence fessional grouping? Would not success in securing of many of his students to the more technical phases of application of the principles of chemistry in the field of chemistry.
