Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
What’s Copenhagen Got To Do With Chemistry Class? Using a Play to Teach the History and Practice of Science Nancy K. Spillane* Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Through the reading, study, and performance of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Frayn, chemistry students see the application of nuclear chemistry content, acquire a better understanding of the continuum from scientific research to technology design, and also become aware of the many and varied interrelationships of science with history and humanity. This article describes a method to use the play in a high school chemistry classroom as a vehicle for cross-disciplinary integration of chemistry content through the context of history and the development of scientists as people. Students experience the lives of two scientists, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, as they negotiate their academic and personal relationships surrounding basic atomic research during the historical time period surrounding World War II and the creation of the atom bomb. In student group discussions, tangents of discourse move from the various scientists’ personalities and the iterative nature of scientific research, to questions of politics, ethics, and morality in a historic context as they discuss, debate, and decide upon ways to present the play so their peers will understand and appreciate the experience. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, History/Philosophy, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Curriculum, Physical Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative, Communication/Writing, Atomic Properties/Structures, Nuclear Chemistry/Radiochemistry
A
objectives themselves as well as to the relevant uses of new knowledge, and recent studies by Rivet and Krajcik6 describe the advantages of contextualizing student learning within their “prior knowledge and everyday experiences.” In addition, there is precedent set,7,8 and increasing recent focus,3,9 on taking a more interdisciplinary approach to all learning, with particular attention to the sciences. A 1990s report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action highlights the importance of integrating science into the human experience and recommends “incorporating philosophy, values and methods of science into instruction in the natural sciences.”7 A. Truman Schwartz8 echoes these recommendations in a speech lamenting the great divide between the “scientific establishment and the literary establishment,” and suggests one way of addressing concerns of scientific illiteracy is to “embed science, and chemistry in particular, in the liberal arts tradition,” to help students make connections between chemistry content and their other courses of study. More recently, the National Research Council released two documents that give particular attention to interdisciplinary connections. A Framework for K-12 Science Education3 introduces the ideas of “cross-cutting concepts” and “practices of science” that represent knowledge and understanding that
s science teachers, we are increasingly encouraged to connect the science in our classrooms with other disciplines and our students’ worlds at large. With content ever expanding, no additional class time, and a focus on meeting standards, this is a daunting task. Using the contentrich play Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn,1 chemistry is integrated with physics, math, and history through the arts to contextualize the application of nuclear science to technological development. This multidisciplinary vehicle allows students to experience scientific discovery through the explorations, arguments, and controversies of the scientists who lived it, through the moral and ethical dilemmas they faced, and within the social and political events of the time, all the while addressing important science standards. (For connections to the 1996 National Science Education Standards2 and the 2012 A Framework for K-12 Science Education3 that is the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards4 due to be released within the year, see Supporting Information, Tables 1 and 2.)
■
HARNESSING THE INTERDISCIPLINARY ADVANTAGE Connecting new academic content to students’ prior knowledge and their lives beyond classroom walls increases the effectiveness of student learning. How People Learn5 describes learning requiring a “network of connections” among the © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2007058 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
funny, scientifically deep, and engaging. I wanted to design a classroom experience to include a study of Copenhagen in my chemistry classes that would help my students not only learn the science and appreciate chemistry’s connection to real lives and historical events, but also enable them to understand the play well enough to laugh at the jokes and enjoy the literary and artistic experience. The project takes place in the second semester of a year-long high school chemistry course meeting daily for about 45 min. Spanning six weeks overall, with only four or five class days actively committed to the play, this project consists of three assignments: (1) reading the play, (2) reading responses, and (3) dramatic reading. The first two assignments occur concurrently and outside of class time, the third takes place in class at the completion of the reading. Outlined below are the specific details and timeline for this project.
permeate and connect all sciences with technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as important areas of focus in writing new K-12 science standards. And extending beyond STEM integration, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research9 makes recommendation to the research community that “interdisciplinary studies could help to increase the coherence of students’ learning experience across disciplines ... and could facilitate an understanding of how to promote the transfer of knowledge from one setting to another.”
■
COMBINING ARTS AND CHEMISTRY The literature provides many examples of, and studies on, the integration of the fine, visual, literary, and theatrical arts (often with extensions into history) into chemistry, and the resulting enhancement of understanding through the fusion of these fields. Including art-based chemistry activities in high school chemistry classes is shown to increase conceptual understanding.10,11 Exploring the creation and history of works of art through understanding the chemistry of artistic media and analytical chemistry methods amplifies the knowledge gained in both fields.12,13 Expressing chemistry concepts and historical context through poetry helps students appreciate the human creative side of science;14 interpreting Shakespeare’s plays through the lens of entropy provides an avenue to increased science literacy,8 and addressing the ethics of scientific investigation in a college-level chemistry course through literary reading and essay writing results in students’ attitude shifts relative to science, scientific research, and scientists.15 Theater arts have long been a vehicle of informal education for educating the public audience, and these experiences have been shown to be educational as well as entertaining when particular theatrical techniques are incorporated into the performance.16 There are plays that have been written about chemistry concepts,1,17 and their video performance has the potential to be useful in the classroom.18
■
■
THE CLASSROOM PROJECT
Assignment 1: Reading the Play
The exact timing of the Copenhagen project during the second semester is not critical except that the study of nuclear chemistry, including fission, fusion, and radioactive decay, should be completed. During the first semester, students will have studied atomic structure from Democritus through basic quantum mechanics, so they have a solid content foundation on which to build a more substantial, nuanced, and crossdisciplinary understanding of nuclear chemistry’s place in history and society. The students read Copenhagen outside of class over a period of five-weeks, and during this time, in class, content unrelated to the play may be covered, but this does not seem to be problematic. Each Friday for five weeks, the students are assigned about 25 pages of the play to read by the following Friday. The reading timeline (Table 1) shows how the reading is divided over the five weeks and also outlines the content of the play. This chart is not given to the students, but is provided so the teacher can get an overview of the scientific, humanistic, geographical, and historical content that the students will encounter as they read. When introducing the project, I tell the students that after they finish reading the play, they will be assigned to groups to perform sections as dramatic readings. I also tell them that the play is challenging to understand and they might be confused or have difficulty following everything that happens, but they should do their best to get a general idea of what is going on. On any given class day during the five week time-period, we might talk briefly about the reading if there is collective confusion. However, we do not spend a significant amount of time discussing or analyzing at this time because an important part of the learning experience revolves around the cooperative sense-making discussions the students will have with their group-mates as they prepare their presentations for their classmates.
INTERPRETING THE PLAY, COPENHAGEN
Background
Copenhagen is a play about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, theoretical physicists who were colleagues, collaborators, and family friends throughout most of their academic lives. In 1941 they met in Copenhagen, Denmark. The content of the meeting is not known, but the two scientists never spoke afterward. This play explores three hypotheses of what happened during that fateful encounter, and in the process covers vast historical and scientific territory. Along the way, it paints a picture of scientists who have spouses and children, who cooperate on research, and have arguments with each other; who play jokes and hike and ski with friends, who struggle with moral dilemmas, and are asked to make difficult decisions. They are real. They are human. It is also a challenging play to understand, and true appreciation requires a sophisticated scientific vocabulary and a working knowledge of scientific concepts, scientists, geographical locations, and historical references. It is both hilarious and profound, and worth the effort required to give students the opportunity to experience Copenhagen in the chemistry classroom.
Assignment 2: Reading Response Notecards
Each week that the students read a section of the play, they also complete a reading response notecard due on Fridays. On a 4 in. × 7 in. notecard, students write a brief paragraph summarizing the segment of the play they just read. In addition, they list terms that they do not immediately comprehend. Definitions or descriptions are not required, just a list, to include the following:
Inspiration for the Project
Seeing Copenhagen performed in 2001, I was captivated by the connections between science, history, and humanity, so articulately displayed through a conversation among the three characters in the play on a nearly empty stage. It was smart,
• General vocabulary terms • Scientific concepts B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2007058 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Article
• Geographic locations • Names of people, places, events, and so forth Finally, students compose at least one question that comes to mind while reading the section. This can relate to anything at all in the play: why the author made specific decisions, how the history relates to scientists’ behavior, something the student finds confusing or particularly intriguinganything. These questions are not discussed in class, but students will use these cards as a starting point for discussion when they begin working with their dramatic reading groups after they finish reading the play. The reading response notecard assignment is graded for completion and timeliness only. The cards are returned to the students so they can see their grades, but then they are kept in a file box in the classroom where they will remain for safekeeping until the end of the reading when they will be used in their small groups. Assignment 3: The Dramatic Readings
Week 4: Atomic bomb; Fast neutrons; Critical mass; Diffraction grating; Cyclotron; Information gathering during the war; Escape Perrin, Flügge, Peierls, Duckwitz pp 81−94, Relationship between math, science and technology of Jews from Denmark in 1941; Post-war Postscript conditions in Germany pp 95−110 Week 5: Author’s description of liberties and assumptions taken in writing the play; Discussions on different interpretations of Postscript Background on science concepts events by various historians; Timeline of pp 111− end historical and scientific events
Week 3: pp 55−80
Fission process; Fissionable atoms: Uranium; Plutonium, Neptunium; Moral dilemma of bomb research and bomb Chadwick, Rozental, Diebner, Jensen, Houtermanns, Separation Of Uranium-235 From Uranium-238; Matter to energy, use; Allied nuclear program; Letter from Teller, Szilard, Rittner, Guerlach, Diebner, Speer, Nuclear reactor; Heavy water; Cadmium; Critical Mass; Chain Reaction; Einstein to Roosevelt; Human impact of the Hitler Copenhagen Interpretation; Iterative nature of science, Technological war on German citizens; Air raids; design process and expense Radiation sickness Electron spin, Quantum mechanics; Matrix calculus; Schrödinger’s wave Interconnectedness of the academic scientific Kramers, Dirac, deBroglie, Gamow, Landau, Goudsmit, mechanics; Cooperative−competitive nature of scientific research; Public community; Methods of scientific knowlUhlenbeck, Stern communication of science; Personal side of scientific research edge dissemination Week 2: pp 33−54
European univer- Holland, Norway sities; Research institutes; Vacation towns England
Geography Places People History
Social, political, and academic climate in 1941 Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, von Weizsäcker, Rozental, Petersen, Moller, Einstein, Pauli, Frisch, Meitner, Sommerfeld, Von Laue, Wirtz, Harteck, Hahn, Fermi, Strassmann, Wheeler, Schrödinger, Casimir, Gamow, Oppenheimer
Science
Theoretical physics, Fission; Uncertainty; Collaborative nature of Science
Readings
Week 1: pp 3−32
Table 1. Reading Timeline and Content of the Play by Category
European and Germany, Denmark North American Universities involved in nuclear science research Los Alamos, Farm Sweden, HiroshiHall, Haigerloch ma, Nagasaki
Journal of Chemical Education
Introducing the Assignment. The dramatic readings take place during the sixth and final week of the Copenhagen project. On the Friday of the fifth week, the day the final reading response notecard is due, the students are randomly divided into groups of four, and each group is assigned an equal portion of the play to perform as their dramatic reading assignment (Box 1). The number of pages each group performs will depend on the number of groups in any given class; I usually divide the total number of pages in the play by the number of groups and look for logical transition points. The student groups have a brief time on this Friday to plan how they will use the two full days of cooperative planning time on the following Monday and Tuesday. Performances begin on Wednesday. The role of narrator described in this assignment is not written into the play; it is an additional character I created to enable students to clarify confusing references or difficult ideas for the audience as the play is performed. By the end of the six weeks, the students will have worked through Copenhagen three times: a first reading on their own, then discussing and analyzing it within their groups, and finally performing the play for their peers in class. Preparing with Group Discussions and Research. It is during the two days of discussion and research with their dramatic reading groups that the majority of the learning and clarification of understanding takes place (see the Student Response section below). During these two days, the students actively dissect the play’s content to determine who the people are, how they are related, what the circumstances are behind each conversation, and what an audience-member might need to know to fully appreciate and enjoy the performance on stage. The students must explore scientific concepts, the research and development processes, the historical context of the events, the literary interpretation of scientific ideas, and the human, social, emotional, political, and ethical aspects of the story. The scientific concepts themselves (see Table 1) can be challenging for first-year chemistry students, but through research and discussion, they are able to arrive at explanations of the context and significance of terms such as matrix mechanics, wave mechanics, and complementarity in ways that make sense to a general audience. In the play, the dramatizations of some of the scientific ideas such as uncertainty and atomic structure are subtle in an artistic, abstract way that needs clarification. In addition, students must expand their understanding of the history of this time period as well as the geography of the environment to fully contextualize the scientists’ behaviors and decisions. C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2007058 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Student Response
Box 1. The Dramatic Reading Assignment
Student comments on an end-of-term survey where they were asked about the impacts of the Copenhagen project (see the Supporting Information, Table 3, for survey questions; and Supporting Information, Box 2, for more complete student responses) provide insight into the richness of the students’ experiences. Several themes emerged from these responses covering all aspects of the project from the struggle to understand the play on first read, to altered perceptions of scientists, and scientific labor, to an integrated grasp of science’s connection to history, technology, and humanity. On the challenges of reading the play, one student commented, “the play was very confusing” but went on to add, “once we started to pull out some details and notice specific references, I thought it was educational and interesting.” Another student described “a better understanding of the science behind nuclear chemistry”, and still another, who identified herself as an actress, commented, “it was an amazing way to learn nuclear chemistry and I really feel I actually learned it.” Several students noted that the project provided them different insight into how scientific research is performed, commenting on “how collaboration worked between some of the scientists”, that “scientists are influenced by other scientists much more than I realized”, and that scientific research during wartime in particular was “more dangerous than I had previously thought scientific work would be.” They cited altered perceptions of scientists: “Before reading this book I thought scientists back then were crazy and were almost not humans; however, once I read, I realized that the scientists actually paid more attention to the world than [the nonscientists]”, and they even “had opinions, which they loved to share and argue about.” Some of the most passionate comments reflected students’ greater understanding of the place of science, scientists, and scientific research in their own learning and lives. One student noted the connections between science and history: I realized how interconnected science and history is, how these breakthroughs and discoveries occurred on a timeline, a sequence, and weren’t just common knowledge at the time. We also discussed some of the same things in history class, so we sort of see how they’re interconnected in that sense too. Another focused on the relationship between science and technology: Copenhagen showed that scientific research leads the way for many different fronts. Technology created by scientific research propelled history along much faster than it otherwise would have. Science is at the heart of advancement.” And a third student cited how the play provided a different perspective on history: Copenhagen made me realize the whole us vs. them scenario of the war: the different viewpoints and struggles of countries during the war. I was also surprised by the brilliant scientists it involved and the magnitude of work that went into the war. It gave me a different view of war, a sort of unbiased one of both sides and what they were trying to accomplish or avoid. And finally, a most poignant statement: “The book demonstrates how science can have a direct impact on the entire world, and that the work of a couple of men can forever change history.”
Performance: Your group of four, your Dramatic Reading Group, will be assigned a specific section of Copenhagen to perform as a dramatic reading for your classmates. You will be able to use the books as you perform, but are expected to be familiar enough with the content that you can read it fluidly, pronounce all words correctly, and display appropriate emotions and interactions. Roles: You must determine who will fulfill each of the following four roles: Margarethe, Bohr, and Heisenberg, who are characters in the play, and a Narrator whose role is described below. As a group you must carefully read through the content of your assigned play section and decide what information should be clarified for an audience that is unfamiliar with the play and the science. You should identify what terms need to be defined, what individuals or places need to be introduced, and what concepts must be explained or elaborated for your audience’s full understanding. Use the cards you completed while reading the play as a starting point to remind yourself of material that challenged you the first time you read it. Narrator: After determining points of clarification, your group must determine how the narrator will insert explanations into your reading of the play so the timing is appropriate and the play flows smoothly. The narrator may speak at any time and may also use maps, diagrams, or other props, but the actors should freeze when the narrator speaks or takes over the stage, and these interruptions must be planned in advance and rehearsed. Continuity: There must be continuity throughout the play among the actors in the same role. In other words, the audience must have some visual cue that all of the actors reading the role of Margarethe, or Bohr, or Heisenberg are the same character throughout. Talk with the other actors in the same roles and arrange a costume that can be worn, a prop that can be carried, or a characteristic behavior that will help the audience easily follow each character throughout the play. Be creative. A chemistry teacher colleague tried out this project with her students during the 2011−2012 school year and had this comment about her experience,19 They [the students] are definitely confused by the play on first reading, even with notecards to help them kind of focus their energy, but when they break into groups to analyze, read, and narrate, it is really transformational. Not only do they seem to have no background about WWII, which this helps to teach and contextualize, it forces them to think about the moral implications of science in a dramatic (no pun intended here) manner. The Finale: Play Presentations. The dramatic readings begin with the first group and continue as time allows each day. Each audience member completes a short evaluation form (see Supporting Information, Box 1, Dramatic Reading Evaluation Form) to assess each group’s presentation. Audience members critique the use of the narrator and whether the play and its content are clear, well explained, and well performed. These evaluation forms are collected and considered when assigning grades to the groups’ presentations. D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2007058 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
(4) Next Generation Science Standards. 2011. Achieve, Inc. http:// www.achieve.org/next-generation-science-standards (accessed Dec 2012). (5) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; Bransford, J. D.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. R., Eds.; National Research Council, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999. (6) Rivet, A. E.; Krajcik, J. S. Contextualizing Instruction: Leveraging Students’ Prior Knowledge and Experiences to Foster Understanding of Middle School Science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45, 79−100. (7) The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action; Report of the Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 1990. (8) Schwartz, A. T. Chemistry Education, Science Literacy, and the Liberal Arts: 2007 George C. Pimental Award, Sponsored by Rohm and Haas. Co. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1750−1756. (9) National Research Council. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005. (10) Danipog, D. L.; Ferido, M. B. Using Art-Based Activities to Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1610−1615. (11) Flores, M. The Alchemy of Art. The Science Teacher 2005, 72, 48−49. (12) Orna, M. V. Doing Chemistry at the Art/Archeology Interface. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 373−376. (13) Uffelman, E. S. Technical Examination of 17th-Century Dutch Painting as Interdisciplinary Coursework for Science Majors and Nonmajors. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1617−1624. (14) Aber, M. Creative Writing and Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 478−480. (15) Reilly, J. T.; Strickland, M. A Writing and Ethics Component for a Quantum Mechanics, Physical Chemistry Course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2010, 39, 35−41. (16) Kerby, H. W.; Cantor, J.; Weiland, M.; Babiarz, C.; Kerby, A. W. Fusion Science Theater Presents The Amazing Chemical Circus: A New Model of Outreach That Uses Theater To Engage Children in Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1024−1030. (17) Djerassi, C.; Hoffman, R. Oxygen; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2001. (18) Kovac, J. Review of Oxygen: University Theater Production of the Play. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1354−1355. (19) Thomas-Shapiro, R. The Williams School, New London CT. Personal communication, 2012.
SUMMARY My chemistry classes would have studied nuclear chemistry whether or not we read and performed Copenhagen. We would also have studied atomic theory including Bohr’s model of the atom and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. What my students learned in addition, is that the science behind the atomic bomb was discovered and constructed by countless great minds working individually and together, cooperating and disagreeing, and building on each other’s work. They learn that religion had an effect on the study of science and that science played a role in WWII. They learn that families support the work of scientists and that research can be done on walks, during vacations, and while touring foreign countries. My students have a context for the science content they learn, emotions to surround it, and threads to tie it into the many aspects of their own lives and learning. These connections seem to help my students understand the science they learn in chemistry class just a little bit better, and I am hopeful that the creation of a network of ties to history, the arts, and humanity will help them remember it a little longer as well.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
Connections between this project and the National Science Education Standards and A Framework for K-12 Science Education; the Dramatic Reading Evaluation Form for use in the classroom; additional detail on the Student End-of-Course Survey Copenhagen Questions and excerpts of student responses to the survey. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Larry Suter, Mike Haney, and Mark Greenman, all formerly at the National Science Foundation, for encouraging me to write and submit this project for publication. In addition I am indebted to Kristen Sueoka, Deirdre Christman, Dave Oberbillig, and Fred Belmont, along with the fine reviewers and editorial staff at JCE, for editorial commentary guiding me throughout the process. And without my many chemistry students at The Williams School who helped me refine this project throughout my years of teaching, this would never have been possible. I would like to offer particular thanks to Rachel Thomas-Shapiro and her chemistry students at The Williams School for taking the time to try out this project and give me feedback on their experience.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Frayn, M. Copenhagen; Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc.: New York, NY, 1998. (2) National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council (NRC). National Science Education Standards; National Academies Press: Washington DC, 1996. (3) National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2011. E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2007058 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
