- Email: [email protected]
Aims and costs of chemical experimentation in teaching
MICROCHEMICAL
Aims
VOL. III,
JOURNAL
and Costs of Chemical
PAGES 131-134 (1959)
Experimentation
in
Teaching Beginning with this issue, the Journal opens a new department devoted to the application of small scale experimentation in the teaching of chemistry from the high school to the graduate level. This is in realization of one of the original purposes for which the Journal was founded. Although our circulation does not at present reach all those who should be concerned, we hope that through “Scientific Abstracts” we will progressively excite the interest of teachers everywhere who stand to benefit from our efforts. We are prompted to initiate this campaign by drawing attention to the publication in Chemical and Engineering News (November 3, 1958, page 70) of an article on education entitled “Small Schools Have Problems,” from which we quote the opening paragraph: The small high school-one with an enrollment of about 200 students-faces two big problems when it tries to establish a sound science curriculum: the teacher shortage and a lack of facilities. Wherever a personnel shortage exists, the better positions are filled first, and qualified teachers get jobs in the big schools. The cost of new lab facilities is high; a recent estimate for setting up a chemistry lab in a small high school sets the price at $15,000 plus $3,000 a year.
The statement about the cost is correct. Chemical laboratory installations and apparatus for teaching, particularly in America, are expensive. But we would like to pose this question: Does a laboratory for individual student practice, with sections of 20-30 students, have to be as elaborate and expensive as suggested by the figures it can be done at quoted in this article? Our answer is NO-that one-fifth to one-sixth of the present cost, and we hope to prove, through our discussions and original contributions, that it is possible to set up a chemical laboratory which will accommodate sections of 20-30 students for individual laboratory practice at a total initial cost of $2,000-$3,000 and of $300-$400 annually for upkeep and supplies. We do not claim any originality for these apparently radical proposals. In 1835, D. B. Reid, in giving evidence before the select 131
132
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN
TEACHING
committee on education in Ireland, recommended the use of small scale experimentation for science teaching in schools. His students were provided with a blowpipe, a test tube, slips of paper, and with broad and narrow strips of glass such as the glazier discards. The microscope was used when necessary. Tests were performed on glass slides; these were used for heating, evaporation, and filtration. “Every schoolmaster,” Reid said, “might provide himself with an apparatus suficient to show thousands of experiments on the small scale” (italics ours). We invite the reader to glance at pages 191-209 of this number, and then to consider why for over 100 years these early proposals have failed to gain their deserved popularity. Js it because, along with the general upgrading of the standard of living, we secretly believe that a bird can sing better in a gilded cage than in a wooden one? Or is it because science teachers are just susceptible to the tradition that “what was good enough for my father is good enough for me,” and thus teach the way they were taught themselves? Or is it because the principles of chemistry cannot actually be demonstrated without the use of the present elaborate facilities of laboratory construction, equipment, and methods of experimentation? It is our position that the first two reasons are primarily responsible and that the last is nothing more than a rationalization. It is ironical that the teacher of “experimentation” should have a mental blocking against “experimenting with other approaches” up to the time that he is faced with ever-increasing costs and the specter of mushrooming enrollments. It is not only inertia and the dead hand of tradition, however, that are to be blamed. Consider the situation of the young “experimental” teacher approaching a publisher, bearing a manuscript on new methods in laboratory teaching. Up until a few years ago he would invariably have been met with a sympathetic but implacable smile and the murmured comment: ‘Very interesting, but. . -” Or consider the experiences of many friends and contributors of the Journal when requesting manufacturers and dealers in laboratory apparatus to produce items needed for small scale experimentation. The answer has always been in the same vein: “Sorry, but there is too little demand for. . .” In one notable instance, a leading manufacturer of laboratory apparatus has been quoted as saying that “we have to see a market for 30,000 units a year, and our sales survey indicates that there is no prospect for MICROCHEMICAL
JOURNAL,
VOL.
III,
ISSUE
2
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN TEACHING
133
It should be pointed out that the item referred to such a market.” here was financed by the teacher concerned at a cost of 58 cents per unit in lots of 1000, and that it is now being regularly produced and used. But aside from the situation in America and the other “haue” countries, conditions m the “have-not” countries are even less favorable-not only with respect to individual laboratory practice, but During the past month also for demonstratCion experimentation. alone, the Jownul’s office has been visited by teachers from three small countries, in the interests of which the United States holds ideological shares: one from Iran, a second from Greece, and a third from Pakistan. All three of them heard of us through “Abstracts” and they all wanted to know how we teach without the use of elaborate equipment. When asked about the methods they used in individual laboratory practice, all gave essentially the same answernamely, that they did not have individual practice but did possess some demonstration apparatus which they found in many cases too expensive. Finally, coming to the crux of the matter, we must consider whether the aims of chemical experimentation can be attained by the use of only a few small tubes, glass slides, and other inexpensive items. Our categorical answer is that all the principles and facts of elementary chemistry at the high school or college level can be illustrated and taught through individual laboratory practice with the use of small scale experimentation at one-fifth of the cost and in about one-half of the student’s time than is the case with present traditional methods. Furthermore, we claim that students develop superior habits of care and cleanliness, as well as manipulative skills, with a concomitant reduction in the number and seriousness of accidents. We are old-fashioned in our firm belief that chemistry and other science teaching is best achieved in the laboratory through the direct observation of changes initiated by the students themselves and as a result of teacher-student interaction brought about by discussion of such observations. Films, film-strips, TV, and correspondence discussion-although invaluable as aids for the reinforcement of direct observation--will never be adequate substitutes for direct contact with the materials and processes of nature; and a re-evaluation of their potential usefulness in science education is suggested in view of
134
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN
TEACHING
the fact that laboratory science teaching can be made to fit even a meager budgetary pocketbook. Although fully mindful of Aristotle’s dictum that “we usually prove what we already believe,” we invite the reader to consider the illustration of two elementary reactions presented in general chemistry. Everyone will readily recall the experiment introducing the concept of chemical reactions by heating either iron and sulfur or zinc and sulfur, and also the one involving the reaction between silver nitrate and sodium chloride. The picture of these early experiments lingers with us even beyond the age of 60 years. We invite the reader to invoke his own memory and then to read the expositions of these same concepts as given in page 197 with Figures 7 and 8 and page 201 with Figures 15 and 16 of this issue. The editorial office will be pleased to receive your critical comments. N.D.C.
MICROCHEMICAL
JOURNAL,
VOL.
III,
ISSUE
Aims
VOL. III,
JOURNAL
and Costs of Chemical
PAGES 131-134 (1959)
Experimentation
in
Teaching Beginning with this issue, the Journal opens a new department devoted to the application of small scale experimentation in the teaching of chemistry from the high school to the graduate level. This is in realization of one of the original purposes for which the Journal was founded. Although our circulation does not at present reach all those who should be concerned, we hope that through “Scientific Abstracts” we will progressively excite the interest of teachers everywhere who stand to benefit from our efforts. We are prompted to initiate this campaign by drawing attention to the publication in Chemical and Engineering News (November 3, 1958, page 70) of an article on education entitled “Small Schools Have Problems,” from which we quote the opening paragraph: The small high school-one with an enrollment of about 200 students-faces two big problems when it tries to establish a sound science curriculum: the teacher shortage and a lack of facilities. Wherever a personnel shortage exists, the better positions are filled first, and qualified teachers get jobs in the big schools. The cost of new lab facilities is high; a recent estimate for setting up a chemistry lab in a small high school sets the price at $15,000 plus $3,000 a year.
The statement about the cost is correct. Chemical laboratory installations and apparatus for teaching, particularly in America, are expensive. But we would like to pose this question: Does a laboratory for individual student practice, with sections of 20-30 students, have to be as elaborate and expensive as suggested by the figures it can be done at quoted in this article? Our answer is NO-that one-fifth to one-sixth of the present cost, and we hope to prove, through our discussions and original contributions, that it is possible to set up a chemical laboratory which will accommodate sections of 20-30 students for individual laboratory practice at a total initial cost of $2,000-$3,000 and of $300-$400 annually for upkeep and supplies. We do not claim any originality for these apparently radical proposals. In 1835, D. B. Reid, in giving evidence before the select 131
132
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN
TEACHING
committee on education in Ireland, recommended the use of small scale experimentation for science teaching in schools. His students were provided with a blowpipe, a test tube, slips of paper, and with broad and narrow strips of glass such as the glazier discards. The microscope was used when necessary. Tests were performed on glass slides; these were used for heating, evaporation, and filtration. “Every schoolmaster,” Reid said, “might provide himself with an apparatus suficient to show thousands of experiments on the small scale” (italics ours). We invite the reader to glance at pages 191-209 of this number, and then to consider why for over 100 years these early proposals have failed to gain their deserved popularity. Js it because, along with the general upgrading of the standard of living, we secretly believe that a bird can sing better in a gilded cage than in a wooden one? Or is it because science teachers are just susceptible to the tradition that “what was good enough for my father is good enough for me,” and thus teach the way they were taught themselves? Or is it because the principles of chemistry cannot actually be demonstrated without the use of the present elaborate facilities of laboratory construction, equipment, and methods of experimentation? It is our position that the first two reasons are primarily responsible and that the last is nothing more than a rationalization. It is ironical that the teacher of “experimentation” should have a mental blocking against “experimenting with other approaches” up to the time that he is faced with ever-increasing costs and the specter of mushrooming enrollments. It is not only inertia and the dead hand of tradition, however, that are to be blamed. Consider the situation of the young “experimental” teacher approaching a publisher, bearing a manuscript on new methods in laboratory teaching. Up until a few years ago he would invariably have been met with a sympathetic but implacable smile and the murmured comment: ‘Very interesting, but. . -” Or consider the experiences of many friends and contributors of the Journal when requesting manufacturers and dealers in laboratory apparatus to produce items needed for small scale experimentation. The answer has always been in the same vein: “Sorry, but there is too little demand for. . .” In one notable instance, a leading manufacturer of laboratory apparatus has been quoted as saying that “we have to see a market for 30,000 units a year, and our sales survey indicates that there is no prospect for MICROCHEMICAL
JOURNAL,
VOL.
III,
ISSUE
2
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN TEACHING
133
It should be pointed out that the item referred to such a market.” here was financed by the teacher concerned at a cost of 58 cents per unit in lots of 1000, and that it is now being regularly produced and used. But aside from the situation in America and the other “haue” countries, conditions m the “have-not” countries are even less favorable-not only with respect to individual laboratory practice, but During the past month also for demonstratCion experimentation. alone, the Jownul’s office has been visited by teachers from three small countries, in the interests of which the United States holds ideological shares: one from Iran, a second from Greece, and a third from Pakistan. All three of them heard of us through “Abstracts” and they all wanted to know how we teach without the use of elaborate equipment. When asked about the methods they used in individual laboratory practice, all gave essentially the same answernamely, that they did not have individual practice but did possess some demonstration apparatus which they found in many cases too expensive. Finally, coming to the crux of the matter, we must consider whether the aims of chemical experimentation can be attained by the use of only a few small tubes, glass slides, and other inexpensive items. Our categorical answer is that all the principles and facts of elementary chemistry at the high school or college level can be illustrated and taught through individual laboratory practice with the use of small scale experimentation at one-fifth of the cost and in about one-half of the student’s time than is the case with present traditional methods. Furthermore, we claim that students develop superior habits of care and cleanliness, as well as manipulative skills, with a concomitant reduction in the number and seriousness of accidents. We are old-fashioned in our firm belief that chemistry and other science teaching is best achieved in the laboratory through the direct observation of changes initiated by the students themselves and as a result of teacher-student interaction brought about by discussion of such observations. Films, film-strips, TV, and correspondence discussion-although invaluable as aids for the reinforcement of direct observation--will never be adequate substitutes for direct contact with the materials and processes of nature; and a re-evaluation of their potential usefulness in science education is suggested in view of
134
CHEMICAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN
TEACHING
the fact that laboratory science teaching can be made to fit even a meager budgetary pocketbook. Although fully mindful of Aristotle’s dictum that “we usually prove what we already believe,” we invite the reader to consider the illustration of two elementary reactions presented in general chemistry. Everyone will readily recall the experiment introducing the concept of chemical reactions by heating either iron and sulfur or zinc and sulfur, and also the one involving the reaction between silver nitrate and sodium chloride. The picture of these early experiments lingers with us even beyond the age of 60 years. We invite the reader to invoke his own memory and then to read the expositions of these same concepts as given in page 197 with Figures 7 and 8 and page 201 with Figures 15 and 16 of this issue. The editorial office will be pleased to receive your critical comments. N.D.C.
MICROCHEMICAL
JOURNAL,
VOL.
III,
ISSUE