Textbooks provide one example. I argued nearly a decade ago (1) that major changes ought to be made in the general chemistry course, and, in particular, in the textbooks that support that course. One month ago, Ron Gillespie argued in a Commentary piece in these pages (2) that general chemistry textbooks were in need of reform. And in this issue Sue Nurrenbern and Bill Robinson (3) quote John Dewey's statement that in 1916 the idea that information could be poured into students' heads was universally condemned. But nobody did much about it then, and nobody seems to have done much in the recent past either. What are we waiting for? How long does it take to start acting on what we believe in?

If it were easy to change the way we set up systems to help students learn, we certainly would have done it already. But it isn't easy. Developing new approaches takes time, imagination, energy, and guts. Not many of us have all of these at once, and not for long enough to do all the things that need doing in this area. And there is always a reaction to anything that is changeda Le Chatelier-like counteracting force that minimizes the effect of the changes we make.

As an example, consider the problem of making major changes in textbooks, as Gillespie and others before him argued that we should do. Textbooks are written and then publishers have them reviewed. Reviewers' comments often reflect the status quo. One comment I remember vividly said, in effect, "We don't do that in general chemistry." This was considered to be a valid argument against putting something new into a book. Another comment that drives me up the wall relates to the issue of trying to engage students so that they will try things and discover things as they read a textbook. It goes something like this, "How can you ask them that question when you haven't told them how to answer it yet?" If we tell students how to answer every question they will meet in a textbook exercise, on an exam, or in some other assessment, then how can we expect them ever to discover anything for themselves or to learn how to learn on their own? And how can we expect them to become problem solvers after they graduate? But the system reacts to counteract the change and brings us back closer to where we started.

An even more powerful counteracting force with regard to any educational change is adoption and use. Reviewers might be ignored, but if nobody adopts a great new textbook, then its effect will be minimal, and that cannot be ignored. Moreover, once people have adopted a new textbook (or any other new approach) they will provide feedback to the publisher about their favorite things that have been left out. Overall these comments are likely to pull an innovator back toward the status quo.

Finally, the constraints of time weigh heavy upon those who would change the system, or even just their own classes. Adopting any new textbook requires much time and effort. This is far worse for a text that takes a completely different approach or that includes new, unfamiliar content. And if that time and effort are not expended, the new approach may well fail, adding to the list of detractors instead of making a convert to a new and better way. Time provides yet another counteracting force.

Yes, I think it can be argued that there is a Le Chatelier-like principle that applies to changes in curriculum, textbooks, or any other aspect of chemical education. And if we carry this analogy further, it implies that our system must be at equilibrium, since it is equilibrium systems to which Le Chatelier's principle applies. That's a sobering thought. Are all of our little changes going in opposite directions and producing no overall observable change in the system? There has not been much observable change, which is in accord with the hypothesis that our system has reached equilibrium.

So what should we be doing about this? And is there anything we can do? I think there is. In my view we have become trapped temporarily in a local minimum on a very complicated potential-energy surface. We have a pretty good system, but not the best, and there are activation barriers all around us that prevent us from achieving an even better one. What we need are new, catalytic ideas that will lower some of those barriers. I think those ideas are going to derive from one general principle, namely that we need to focus on learning much more and on content and instruction much less. That is, we need to devise, implement, and reward systems in which the student is paramount but is also made responsible for learningsystems that set real problems and then guide students toward reasonable solutions rather than tell them how to answer questions. There is currently a considerable driving force in favor of such systems, but we still are not in possession of an appropriate catalyst to make them happen on a large scale. Let's redouble our efforts to find one.

Literature Cited

1.Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 15-19.

2.Gillespie, R. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 484-485.

3.Nurrenbern, S. C. and Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 623.

See Letter re: this article.