I became interested in chemistry education reading the column High School Forum that Dudley Herron published in this Journal. I considered the paper “Advice to My Intellectual Grandchildren” (1) as written for me, because over the years, teaching and learning chemistry have become my primary area of scholarship.

Now I am in trouble with myself. Am I a constructivist or a realist? After reading (in the May 2003 issue of this Journal ) Scerri’s attempt to clarify the philosophical implications of constructivism in chemical education (2), I thought I must be a realist, because I ask my students to know accepted scientific theories. But after reading the elegant response to Scerri by Dudley Herron (1), I am sure I am a constructivist. Herron says: “instruction must focus on learners” and this is what I try to do. It seems to me that this should be the distinguishing mark of all of us who wish to be serious teachers.

But I have had a deeper concern for many years that compels me to ask this question again and again: How can I make my teaching more interesting? I think two catchy quotes allude to the answer. One is from Richard Zare (3): “inspiration is more important than information.” Another one comes from Dudley Herron (4, p 57): “The real question is how one can get students interested in learning—more correctly, interested in learning those things that adults deem worthwhile. Seduction, I think.”

How can we translate these ideas into day-to-day practice? What type of practice makes it more probable that students will engage in meaningful learning? Maybe the response is difficult, but aren’t grandparents there for that?

Literature Cited

1. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 24–33.
2. Scerri, E. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 468–474.
3. Coppola, B. P. Chem. Educator 1998, 3, 2.
4. Cardellini, L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 53–59.

See the author's reply.