provocative opinion Unifying Laboratory and Lecture in General Chemistry David K. Erwin Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN 47803
Why are most college-level general chemistry courses composed of a lecture wmponent and a laboratory component? Is the laboratory used to perform meaningful experiments? Do these experiments show the student how chemistry is an experimental science, and do they help the student to understand general chemistry? Surely chemistry is an experimental science, and so it requires both components to impart complete understanding. But, the decreasing numbers of colleee students enrolled in eeneral chemistry~wurses,as well a s the fewer numbers interested in chemistry, would seem to indicate that somethine is not working&erhaps, this lecture-laboratory approach to general chemistry is not accomplishing the desired goals. General chemistry courses a t the college level use the lecture-laboratory combination for several reasons. Most notable among these is the practical need to handle the laree numbers of students who enroll in these courses. In addition, this approach frees college professors from being tied down to laboratory schedules and provides graduate students with teaching assistantships. The problem is that this separation of lecture and laboratorv promotes compartmentalizing where the lecture and iaboratory are viewed as independent courses; in fact, it is unsatisfying and frustrating for both the student and the instructor. How can this be chaneed? Whv not inteaate the laboratory experience into the>lassro~m?~ e n e r achemistry l students need to be allowed to experiment and to diswver in the laboratory and then to bring their discoveries into the classroom for analysis, discussion, and conclusions. The chemistry laboratory should no longer be a separate entity with a separate grade. Instead, the laboratory and classroom time should seek to acwmplish one goal of introduc-
-
862
Journal of Chemical Education
ing, explaining, and directing students in the study and understanding of chemistry. Much of the dislike that students have for chemistry seems to lie in its difficulty, its very low interest, and its lack of "real-life" applications. Arguments may be made for employing copious numbers of lecture demonstrations as interest grabbers. But, a lecture demonstration that explains an important concept still is not very interesting if the concepts are of no interest. If, on the other hand, students are left to discover concevts in the laboratorv with little guidance initially, then theymay be much moreeinterested and motivated in the classroom discussion that follows concerning the experiment and the concepts that accompany it. Furthermore, students need to collect real data, not "canned data" or iustructor-biased data that is perceived to have a "right answer". Students, then, have a stake in classroom time that can be used to build chemical concepts using the laboratory data. In addition, the instructor can be an observer and participant in the student's learning in both the laboratory and classroom. Besides making the laboratory a discovery of chemistry, it also can be used to apply the concepts and understandings. With some goal-oriented laboratory periods, students can test their understanding, design new experiments, and expand their knowledge. Can this be done? Is it practical? Isn't the discovery aspect what makes chemistry exciting and interesting to most of those who have made it their life's work? Shouldn't general chemistry practice what it tries to preach? Shouldn't classroom and laboratory time be united into one general chemistry course?
