Can we still hear our drummers?

---

Can We Still Hear Our Drummers?

The reports of the two conferences that fill much of this issue tell us a great deal ahout contemporary chemical education. What is said, what is implied, and what is not said in the presentations all are revealing. What apparently is heing said, in dozens of different ways, is: we are working like heavers preparing for the coldest winter in a century; we are experimenting with new approaches like highly-motivated mice caught in a psychologist's maze; and we are seeking to accommodate students like the court jester seeks to please the ruling sovereign. What is implied over and over is: we have something important t o offer; we feel an acute urgency to get this across; we sense that not many are listening (including some of our colleagues); we will do anything we need to do to accomplish these ends. What is not said is: we are not certain where all this will lead us; we are diversifying more and satisfying ourselves less; we may have wandered heyond earshot of our drummers. In reading through the approaches used, the methods described, and the ideas suggested in the reports, one has to he impressed with the extent to which we are using information and know-how from other disciplines. Behavioral ohjectives, Keller plan, student contracts, course evaluation questionnaires, statistical analysis, feedback loops, student response systems, interactive modes, audiovisual nroduction facilities, lap-dissolve projection, minicompuiers, programmable cal&lators, CAI, computer-managed instruction, Fortran, Basic, all have become "household apnlinnces" in chemical education. And. hoth the sonhisticar - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ tion and the fervor with which we use much of the information from other disciplines indicate that we have acquired more than a casual understanding in these areas. Who would dare present a paper before the Division of Chemical Education these days without heing prepared to answer in depth questions about behavioral ohjectives, evaluation statistics, or the possibility of using the computer in connection with whatever it is he is talkina- about. And, if the topic is related to lower-division instruction, the author had hetter he able to handle questions such as: what percent of the students are heyond Piaget's concrete operational stage of development, and how did you determine this? What positive reinforcement mechanisms other than the obvious ones can you suggest for getting this across? or, Since this obviously is too complex to he described a t the level and in the journalistic style of Time or Newsweek, how can you justify including it in the course? Nor is the use of knowledge from other disciplines limited to the service courses taught by chemistry departments. Someone has suggested that chemists he encouraged to add a little chemistry to the mathematics and electronics engineering courses they currently offer their undergraduate maiors. i l l of this clearly suggests that chemistry teachers are lookine hevond their discinline in all directions. While we seem to have come a long way from the stereotype of the narrowly-trained specialist, interested only in training more narrowly-trained specialists, perhaps it is ~

~~~~~

- -

editorially speaking time to step hack from all our feverish activity, and to analyze what we have achieved and where we appear to he going. In analyzing what we have accomplished during this period of great effort, we should not avoid facing the tough questions such as: -Have we turned out students who are hetter prepared to perform as professional chemists than those we graduated ten years ago? -Are the students in eneineerine and in other sciences who have taken our courses alsobetter prepared? -Have we markedly improved our effectiveness in getting nonscientists t o understand the nature of the material world, and in motivatina.them to use this knowledge in their everyday lives? -Are we teaching hetter chemistry and hetter science now than ten years ago? If we can honestly answer these questions affirmatively, the chances are we are on the right course. If we cannot, some adjustment would appear to he called for. Obviously, questions such as these have no simple or unambiguous answers. Not only is the system they seek to analyze extremely complex, but each teacher will want to answer them in light of his personal goals and experiences, and those of his institution and students. Nonetheless.. tough re- auestions . quire tough answers, and we should face them squarely. One tough answer that simply cannot be avoided in making this analysis, and in thinking about where we go from here, centers on an assessment of the aualitv of the chemistry being taught and learned. ~ i v e n t h eiact that a t the same time that we have been exverimentine with all kinds of new teaching methods and approaches, the total amount of chemical information has more than doubled, it is hard to escape the thought that, in our efforts to improve, we may have sacrificed substance for form-chemistry for the mechanics of instruction, or understanding for technical detail. Consequently, we need to assure ourselves that we have not innovated at the expense of education quality, i.e., a t the expense of hetter education in chemistry. This could have occurred as readily in upper division A d g r a d u a t e level courses for majors, as in introductory level courses for future scientists or nonscientists. While better education in chemistry is undoubtedly an elusive, multi-faceted concept, it has to include a major component that embodies the science as i t is, and as i t progresses. Standing where we are today and looking forward, better education in chemistry well might result in students knowing more about how to apply fundamental principles of chemistry, hoth old and new, to realistic problems involving chemical systems, and knowing less about such things as how to operate the newest multi-kilohuck machine, how to integrate inverse Laplace transforms, how a certain scientist dealt with the political and social problems he encountered in his lifetime, or the nature of the controversies over phlogiston, polywater, or behavioral ohjectives. In reflecting on these matters, let us hope that all chemistry teachers still hear the drums of chemistry. WTL Volume 52, Number 1, January 1975

/

1