|
In preparation for Earth Day 2004, this issue contains more than a dozen articles that you can use to introduce or augment environmental chemistry topics in the chemistry curriculum at your institution. From the number and variety of papers, it is clear that chemistry faculty at many institutions are developing greener experiments, teaching students to analyze real samples where the results are used in real decisions, and making students more aware of the many ways that chemistry can be applied to improving everyday life. But much more can be done—and should be done—in this area, and in many others where chemistry’s molecular vision is essential to progress. Broadening the molecular vision of all chemistry educators was the purpose of an invitational conference sponsored by ACS’s Society Committee on Education (SOCED). The conference, titled “Exploring the Molecular Vision”, addressed former ACS President Eli Pearce’s challenge that the content of undergraduate and graduate chemistry courses be reinvented in light of the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of chemical research (1). A summary of the conference by Tamara Nameroff and Daryle Busch appears in this issue. Oral reports on the conference were given at the fall ACS national meeting in New York City, and will be given at the 18th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education in July 2004. A full conference report is available on the ACS Web site (2). Here I report the personal observations of a conference attendee—things I found particularly interesting or striking. Two plenary speakers, Jay Labov of the NRC Center for Education and Judith Ramaley of the NSF, set the stage for the conference. According to Labov, when B.S. physicists were asked what skills are most important for success in their jobs, they listed scientific problem solving, ability to synthesize information, and computer skills higher than knowledge of physics. Ramaley’s opinion is that biology and chemistry are transcending their boundaries, and that integration of disciplines and ways in which research is conducted are at least as important as any specific scientific content. Taken together, Labov’s and Ramaley’s presentations argued for changing science education so that it develops skills that transcend specific knowledge, is not constrained by traditional disciplinary boundaries, better represents and exemplifies how scientific research is currently done, and encourages students to play an active role in learning—both in school and throughout their lives. In another plenary address, Peter Atkins of Oxford University elegantly described nine fundamental ideas that every chemistry student should assimilate: matter consists of atoms; atoms have structure; atoms link by sharing electron pairs; molecular shape is of paramount importance; there are residual forces between molecules; energy is conserved; energy and matter tend to spread; there are barriers to reaction; there are four types of reaction: proton transfer, electron transfer, electron sharing, electron-pair sharing. Conference participants modified some of these topics and added new ones, but it was clear that big, important chemical ideas can be identified that would help students appreciate that chemistry is significant, exciting, and full of intellectual beauty. Unfortunately our textbooks and courses too often hide such ideas behind a blizzard of facts, examples, and encyclopedic content. Here are some other ideas that struck my fancy. Ron Breslow suggested that faculty could inform and inspire students by challenging them with interdisciplinary problems that we have not solved or do not know how to solve. Harry Kroto felt that we needlessly turn students away from science by not involving them in cutting-edge research. Terry Collins noted that chemists must deal with ethical implications of science and technology, actively working to develop (and help students learn to develop and maintain) an ecologically sustainable society. Dick Zare’s view was that the greatest challenge for teachers is to interest more students in pursuing careers in science, and in chemistry, not to come to agreement on what would be an ideal curriculum. But where do we find the time to do all of these things and also “cover the material”? The only possible answer is that “covering the material” in the traditional sense cannot be done. We need instead to think much more seriously about improving students’ abilities to solve real, complicated problems, to ignore or transcend disciplinary insularity, to be more aware of how science and technology interact with and support society, and to succeed in careers in fields that may not yet even have been discovered. In such a milieu, specific course and curriculum content becomes less important than how students interact with teachers, content, other students, and society at large. Pages 25 and 26 of the conference report (2) list eight questions about academic issues and three questions involving professional and social issues that all of us should consult as we revise existing courses, create new courses, and enhance and update our curricula. Please consider these questions and think about how you could change what you now do in a way that addresses them. 
Literature Cited- Pearce, E. Reinventing Chemical Education. Chem. Eng. News 2002, 80 (49), 33.
- Exploring the Molecular Vision (accessed Dec 2003).
|
Citation
