AN EXPERIMENT IN CHEMICAL EDUCATION: AN HONORS COURSE IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

LEWIS G. BASSETT Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York

Tm past few years have witnessed a great awakening in the public as a whole to the problems of education. The influx of the "war babies" into the public schools has already strained the resources of the elementary schools in space and personnel to the breaking point. Attempts to cope with the situation require the ex- penditure of large sums of money which must be drawn from the taxpayer's pocket, hence his keen interest in the problem. President Eisenhower's White House Conference on Education last November indicates the national scope of the problem.

The colleges and universities are also beginning to feel the pressure. In New York State, for instance, the present academic year shows a five per cent in- crease in college enrollment over the previous year, and freshman registrations are up 15 per cent in the same period. With characteristic American determina- tion that education be available to all, and with the also characteristic American genius for energetic action, the situation has been recognized, forecasts have appeared, and computations have been made of the magnitude of the problem.

There is another aspect to this problem, however, about which much less is heard. It should not be forgotten that a bigger educational program is not necessarily a better one. The necessity of coping with large numbers of students should not result in the formalizing of our methods of instruction to such an extent that the unusually gifted individual is given little or no chance to think for himself, to display his own initiative, curiosity, or innate creativity. This concern should be felt most keenly in our institutions of higher learning where the concentration of gifted individuals is presumably a t its greatest.

To focus the view of the problem as a whole on a problem which is of major interest to the readers of THIS JOURNAL, consider the situation in undergraduate chemical education in our colleges and universities today. Those who have been a part of the chemical academic world for the past quarter of a century have faced the two-fold problem .of magnitude caused by a steady increase in the number of students who must study chemistry and, concurrently, a steady and enormous expansion of material, factual and theoretical, which may he considered to belong in the field of chemistry. Classes have become larger and larger, and so have the textbooks. A large number of

students (in some cases hundreds) may be instructed simultaneously by one teacher, usually a mature pro- fessor, who is adept at digesting a considerable portion of the text in one session and presenting it in a form readily assimilated by the students. This large lecture group may then be divided into smaller groups or quiz sections in which the lesson may he further ex- plained by the instructor, or more often in which the student may be required a t frequent intervals to recite what has been given to him previously. This system may be not only the most economical, but also the best one to insure adequate and uniform treatment of a large amount of material. It may be the best method for the average or even the poorer student, hut what about its effect on the better student, on the small leaven of gifted students found in almost every class?

If the professor who lectures is skillful and if the course is well organized with sufficient evenly spaced quizzes to insure regular and routine student study, the gifted individual often finds it comparatively easy to ride along. His only incentive is apt to be a desire to win an A. The grade rather than the subject becomes his major interest. The teacher also tends to judge his course by the criterion that if the grades "fit the curve," the course must he all right. There is a feeling that the course is well organized for the "average student," that some thought and attention should he given to the poor student, hut that there is no need to worry about the really good student. He got an A; in fact he will get his A no matter what the method of instruction.

There is a growing realization among educators that both the superior student and the society which he will serve suffer from such an attitude. The student is not challenged to develop his perhaps unusual powers. Society is denied the benefit of the full development of those powers, or it must wait for later development caused by the challenges of life beyond college halls. Here is a real problem for our institutions of higher learning. There is good evidence that a large majority of the leaders in all walks of life dis- played their superiority at a comparatively early age, and society is justified in expecting that our educational system, especially a t the college level, will do its utmost to provide a climate which will challenge, stimulate, even excite the best minds of youth to maximum achievement.

VOLUME 33, NO. 12, DECEMBER, 1956 637

Recently a number of leaders in education, industry, and government were asked the question, "What do you wish most for our colleges and universities in the coming year?" Their replies are given on the educa- tion page of the New Yark Herald Tribune of January 1, 1956. The one by John W. Gardner, president, Carne- gie Corporation of New York, is significant.

In facing the difficult years ahead, I wish that American colleges and universities may have the courage toexperiment freely with new approaches to eductstion and, most of all, with those ap- proaches which will insure a concern for the individual and for the maximum growth of which each American youngster is capable.

In the official "Statement of Policy by the A. C. S. on Matters Relating to Education"' there appear these words:

Yet as the privilege of formal education has been extended to an increasing number of people, appreciation of the value of and need for a disciplined and rigorous education has decreased. Many who now crowd our schoolrooms are capable of absorbing better training. They do not do so because of lack of motivation or lack of opportunities. Parents and teachers alike are at fault if they do not vigorously and enthusiastically urge every pupil t o develop his mental growth to the utmost. Road blocks to educational opportunities most be eliminated.

As long ago as 1942, and after some 20 years teaching first- and second-year college chemistry, the author came to the conclusion that the best students in his classes were not receiving the individual attention and challenge that was their due. At that time his students took two semesters of analytical chemistry. A program was developed in ~vhich a small group, selected a t the end of the first semester, was offered the option of taking the second semester's work on an honors basis. This program was tried out in 1942 with gratifying results. After an interval including the war years and those of the post war influx of veterans, the program was reinaugurated and continued during the years 1951-54.

In all, 27 students have taken this "honors" course. Twenty-six of them responded in writing to an appeal by the author over a year ago for evaluation by each individual of his (or her) reaction to the experience. The number, and also the enthusiastic nature of these responses to his appeal, have encouraged the author to submit this article as a report of an interesting educa- tional experience.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE

Selection of Students. Students were selected by the professor and his staff including both professors and graduate assistants. The basis of selection was the student's achievement during the first semester of analytical chemistry both in the classroom and in the laboratory.

A majority of the students chosen were A students but not all. In the selection much emphasis was put on the evaluation of the student's ability to work on his own initiative. This trait is best observed in the

Chem. Eng. N m s , 34, 263 (1956).

laboratory, and consequently the laboratory assistants were most helpful in making the selections. Usually six students were chosen, and three alternates (rated 1, 2, and 3). The nature of the course was explained to the six. If any of them did not care to try the ex- periment (this happened a few times) the alternate8 were given a chance in order of rating. The selection was less than ten per cent of the 75-140 first-semester students.

Lectures. Originally, attendance at lectures was optional for"honors" students. Experience has shown that less than one-third of these students attended lectures regularly, and that the majority ignored the lectures completely. Beginning with the present academic year, formal lectures to large groups of students have been eliminated from all analytical chemistry courses a t the Institute so that, in the future, lectures will play no part a t all in any honors program.

Laboratory. Students were assigned to two regular three-hour laboratory periods a week (the normal course requirement). Laboratory assignments for the course were the same as those given to the students in the regular course.

Students were encouraged to make use of the labora- tory facilities a t any time during regular school hours, namely, from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. five days a week. In general these students availed themselves of this opportunity, with the result that they completed any- where from ten to thirty per cent more determinations than students in the regular course. Procedures for these extra determinations were assembled from the literature in the departmental library by the students themselves who were, however, required to submit them to the professor for criticism and possible modifica- tion before use in the laboratory.

Recitations. Students did not meet in any of the regular recitation sections.

It should be emphasized that students were not required, in fact no opportunity was given to them, to recite for grading purposes what the professor had given them or what they had taken out of texts or other literature.

Weekly Class Meetings. Students met regularly as a group, once a week with the professor in his office for consultation and advice.

The first weekly class meeting was devoted to a discussion of the course content and of the sources of information in texts and other literature available in the departmental library. Later meetings mere held primarily for the purpose of assisting the students with problems, numerical or otherwise, which they had encountered. Problems were not posed by the pro- fessor, but by the student. If the students had not studied, no problems had been encountered, no ques- tions were asked, and the class was dismissed. This situation usually arose once, and once only, with each group of students. Two of the later class meetings were devoted to a discussion of the term paper as described below.

638 JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION

Term Paper. One term paper was required of each student on a subject of his own choosing.

It should be remembered that the students had taken one semester of analytical chemistry. Presumably they had some basis for choosing a topic in that field in which they would be sufficiently'interested so that they could he encouraged to survey the available literature, and then to discuss the subject in a term paper of 2500-3000 words. About midway in the course, then, the students were required to present topics for approval. Following that, one of the weekly sessions was devoted to a discussion of the approved techniques for the organization and presentation of written technical material. This discussion mas con- ducted by Professor Chris Sanford of the department of English at Rensselaer, and was most admirably done in a genial but also a rigorous and scholarly manner. About one month was allotted to the prepara- tion of the papers which were then reviewed by the professor, and by Professor Sanford. The papers, liberally spotted mith comments and criticism in red and green ink, mere then returned to the students who were usually somewhat horrified at the cavalier manner with which their literary efforts had been treated. Another weekly class session was accordingly devoted to a defense by the professor and by Professor Sanford of their sometimes caustic comments. At this session Professor Sanford also reviewed the over- all results of the project, and took advantage of the occasion to stress some of the general principles of the writer's craft by pointing out the student's errors of omission as well as commission.

Examination. A final, comprehensive, written ex- amination was given a t the end of the course.

Several different types of examinations were tried: closed book, open book, and a combination of the two. In the first year, the conventional, comprehensive, closed book, essay type required not three, hut five hours for completion. This type of examination was eventually discarded in favor of one in three parts: a closed-book portion, an open-book portion to be done in the library, and an open-book numerical problem portion. Students were given the examination a week in advance of the due date, and no time limit was set.

Grades. The only so-called theory grade was that resulting from the final examination. Laboratory determinations were graded, and the grades recorded in the usual manner. The average of these laboratory grades was then averaged mith the examination grade to furnish a final grade for the course.

A sincere attempt was made to minimize any em- phasis on grades, although the prospective students, who might he expected to win A grades in the regular course, were warned that it might be more difficult to do so in the honors course. An equally sincere effort was made to eliminate factual retention as the major criterion of grade achievement. Laboratory analyses require more know-how than know-what, and demand more coordination of hand and mind than brute memorization. It will further he noted that only one-

third of the final examination is a closed-hook test. It is difficult to eliminate grade consciousness in students, but one of the most rewarding aspects of the work bas been the almost complete absence of this consideration.

EVALUATION OF THE COURSE

Some statistics should be presented first. In all, 30 students mere offered the opportunity to take the course, three of whom turned it down. Two of these three were chemical engineering students (very superior ones) who were frank to admit that they did not wish to spend the additional time, which they believed would he necessary, on a course not in their major field of study. The third one, a chemistry major, did not feel that he would profit from the independence, the absence of routine, of the honors course. These reasons were somewhat disturbing, but no attempt was made to influence the students to change their minds.

Of the 27 who elected the course, 22 had ohtained A and five had ohtained B in the regular course of the first semester. The distribution of grades in the honors course was 15 A and 12 B. Seven students may have suffered a loss of a grade point by submitting themselves to the new, unfamiliar regime. I t may be seen that the course is not a device for insuring maxi- mum grades. Ideally, this should be a matter of small concern, but actually the situation poses a problem. Students are forced, by the pressure of circumstances beyond their control, to be excessively grade conscious. In spite of protestations to the contrary, admittance to graduate school, selection for employment, NSF awards, election to honorary societies, in fact most of the rewards of a successful undergraduate career depend to a large degree on a grade record of achievement. This is not an altogether healthy situation. It is a tribute to the courage of the 27 students who elected this course that they did so knowing that they might suffer thereby in their credit point grade average. It is also a challenge to the teacher that he seek some other means than the fear of low grades to spur his students on to greater and greater achievement.

After teaching a course in essentially the same manner for a number of years, one is apt to become restive, to wonder if some changes for improvement are not in order. This was the state of mind of the author in the late spring of 1954 after giving this course five times. It seemed obvious to the author that, since the course had been an educational experiment, the best way to evaluate the results would he to seek the opinions of the students who had submitted themselves as the guinea pigs, so to speak, for the experiment. Letters were accordingly sent to the 27 "alumni" of the course in which the author stated the purpose of his request, and asked for cooperation. A quotation from the letter will indicate the nature of the appeal.

I do have records of achievement in course. . . . From these records and from my o m impressions, I could make quite a. story,

VOLUME 33, NO. 12, DECEMBER, 1956 639

but it would undoubtedly be prejudiced, and not entirely an oh- routine course or an independent honors course, what jective statement of the situation. I need to know what the would you advise him to do, why?,^ ~h~ answers students themselves think of the experience in retrospect. To be specific, please be frank and honest with me tell me what to this question were interesting. Portions of two are you think of that course now that you'look back aver the years quoted below. a t it. I am not so interested in your impressions of the factual

that you but I am very much interested If I had a son faced with the possibility of taking such a similar

in what you think of the experience of being thrown very much course in place of a routine course, I would offer advice which

on your own independence and initirttive at that early stage of would be dependent upon his ability and interest as a student.

your technical career. For a poor or rather disinterested student, I think that the disci- d ine in the routine course is mandiltorv: if he were a mod or

The response to this appeal was overwhelming, Superior student and if he were reasonabvinterested in the work, I would not hesitate to recommend the independent Honors

Twenty-six replies were received, without any follow-up cwsc [From an associate professor in another institution in appeals. The replies were indeed "frank and honest"; which he is oha,irrnau of the academic honors committee] opinions, and criticisms were freely given. Some of the replies ran to three typed pages. The following is a series of observations resulting from a study of the file of these letters fortified with occasional direct quotations.

(1) The replies were unanimous in expressing a feeling of satisfaction in being chosen for the honors course. It was not so much that the students were honored, but that they were pleased. Two quotations from students in two different classes will illustrate what is meant here.

The opportunity which you gave me to take part in this course was the first and most important encouragement that I received a t college in my scientific and technical development. I t came a t a. time when such encouragement was most valuable to me for a number of reesons, professional and nonprofessional. [From a research engineer]

One of the most important things that we acquire in our educa- tion is the ability to think for ourselves. This ability can only be acquired by working on our own, and I think that a, course of the type which you offer is exceedingly valuable. If my son . . . were offered such a course I should certainly advise him to take it. [From a research metsllurgist]

(3) Three persons stated that they enjoyed the course but that it did them no particular good or harm. They are accustomed to work anyway, with or without the prod of routine or quizzes or other stimulus. Fortunate people!

(4) Three persons (not the same as above) ques- tioned the value of the course since it constituted such a small part of the total undergraduate experience that its effect was lost in the general environment. These three recommended, not that the course be discontinued. but that others should he added. This

fianklv honestlv the onlv I have are ones is significant. One quotation will illustrate the point. of pride "and independence. he feeling of independence is a wonderful thing,and every now and then I have felt it, . . .once.. . when I wm finally allowed to learn what I wanted to know and a t my own speed. I am not trying to be nice and put jam on the bread when I say that it was great not to be another number on an IBM machine doing what every other number was doing. The sense of individuality is a. real asset. [From a graduate student . . . . . . . .

that much more can be accomplished by s. series of such courses

now a t another lnstltutlonl wars a e i : however. after beine introduced to this different wav

Truly, the rewards of teaching may be sometime intangible, but nonetheless real. A discordant note must be sounded here, however. There is reason to believe that the one student who did not reply was also pleased with his selection, but he showed his pleasure in an unpleasing manner. Being much in- terested in stndent and fraternity activities, he used his freedom to further those interests to the dis- advantage of his work in analytical chemistry. It must be concluded that in this case (and in this case only) the experiment was definitely a failure.

(2) The great majority of the replies were en- couraging in that they expressed the students' satis- faction with the benefits they had received from the course. In perusing the correspondence, it is interest- ing to note that the older the man, e. g., the farther he is removed in time from the experience, the more enthusiastic his reply. Whether this results from nostalgia or better perspective is an unanswered question. The members of the oldest group (those taking the course in 1942) were asked an additional question in the author's appeal. "If you ever have a son who is offered a similar choice, that is, between a

of learning, I am suie that I would have gotten much more out df similar honor courses that followed.

( 5 ) A few persons included in the two previous groups mentioned above would have preferred a greater challenge by the teacher. Here is the real difficulty. Ideally, the teacher should provide a challenge, not a whip, hut sometimes it is difficult for both the teacher and the stndent to distinguish between the two. One thing is certain. Classes must be kept small in honors courses. One semester's experience with a class of eight convinced the author that six is definitely the maximum that should he permitted in one class. Another thing is certain. Teaching an honors course is stimulating and rewarding, hut it is also arduous and time-consuming if the job is to be done well. Within the normal academic routine, an ordinary professor's sphere of action in this field is definitely limited.

(6) Many of the replies gave definite suggestions for improving the course. Here are s few samples:

(a) Meet twice a week instead of once. (b ) Require several term papers instead of one. (c ) Meet in a formal classroom instead of in the

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION

professor's office. This suggestion came, significantly enough, from a member of the class of eight mentioned above.

( d ) Require each student to present at least one formal lecture to the rest of the class during the semester.

These suggestions are refreshing in the enthusiasm they reflect. It may be noted, however, that they all tend to increase the formal requirements of the course.

CONCLUSIONS

Honors courses are one means of stimulating the superior students in our colleges and universities to greater intellectual achievement. The difficulties, pedagogic and administrative, in providing such courses are many. This paper is a report of one attempt in the field of analytical chemistry which was successful. The author was convinced of this fact when, in a conversation with one of the alumni of the course, now a business executive, the former student

said, "It was in thst course that I first realized that I could get more out of a course than the professor had put into it." If the difficulties are great, so are the rewards. The subject requires further study and continued effort. Comments are invited.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dean P. E. Hemke who graciously has given his consent to this experiment over the years; to Professor Ch1.i~ Sanford of the English department whose enthusiastic cooperation in directing the work with term papers has been invaluable; to his colleagues in the chemistry department, especially to Professors W. H. Bauer and S. E. Wiberley who have contributed suggestions during the years, and who have assisted materially in the preparation of this report. Finally, thanks are due to the former students of the course who, by their comments, have made it possible to evaluate this course in a realistic manner.