Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:59:23 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: ABOUT TOM O'HAVER AND FUTURE ON-LINE CONFERENCES To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal and Brian Tissue Chemistry Department Chemistry Department Clarkson University VPI State University Potsdam NY 13699 Blacksburg VA 24061 rosen@clvm.clarkson.edu tissue@vt.edu Re: INFORMATION ABOUT TOM O'HAVER AND FUTURE ON-LINE CONFERENCES TOM O'HAVER ^^^^^^^^^^^ Tom O'Haver originally suggested the idea of CCE sponsored on-line conferences. He organized and chaired the first conference held during the summer of 1993. Tom has handled the Listserv and World Wide Web site for all the On-Line CHEMCONF Conferences sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education's Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. Tom will retire from the University of Maryland in 1999. He plans to remain active in areas involving science, mathematics and technology education and the Internet. We all wish Tom well in his future activities. Tom would like to pass the management of the on-line Listserv and WWW on to others. CONFCHEM ^^^^^^^^ We are establishing a new Listserv Discussion List - CONFCHEM and a new Website for future conferences. To facilitate the establishment of the CONFCHEM Discussion List we added everyone who was subscribed to the CHEMCONF list in March 1998 to the CONFCHEM List. Those who were added have already been notified. If you wish to add yourself to the CONFCHEM list, send the message: SUBSCRIBE CONFCHEM your-first-and-last-name To: LISTSERV@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU This message must be sent from the e-mail address you wish to use for the on-line conferences and must be CONFIRMED by replying to the message you receive from CONFCHEM. You will receive messages about future Conferences from the CONFCHEM Listserv. CONFCHEM is managed by Donald Rosenthal (ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU). Information and papers will be posted on the CONFCHEM Website. Brian Tissue (tissue@vt.edu) is managing the CONFCHEM World Wide Web site (http://www.chem.vt.edu/confchem/). FUTURE ON-LINE CONFERENCES ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "SWITCHING STUDENTS ON TO SCIENCE" Fall 1998 - September and October Organizer: Hugh Cartwright Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory Oxford University, England Hugh.Cartwright@chemistry.oxford.ac.uk http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/~hmc ------------------------------------------------------------ "WHAT SHOULD STUDENTS KNOW WHEN THEY LEAVE GENERAL CHEMISTRY?" Fall 1999 - September and October Organizer: Paul Kelter Department of Chemistry University of Nebraska Lincoln NE 68588-0304 pkelter@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ "TEACHING SPECTROSCOPY" Fall 1999 - November and December Organizer: Scott Van Brammer Department of Chemistry Widener University Chester PA 19013 svanbram@science.widener.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ GENERAL PAPERS SUMMER 1999 Organizers: Donald Rosenthal and Brian Tissue Chemistry Department Chemistry Department Clarkson University VPI State University Potsdam NY 13699 Blacksburg VA 24061 rosen@clvm.clarkson.edu tissue@vt.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ Other sessions are in the early planning stages. Anyone interested in organizing a future on-line session should contact Donald Rosenthal or Brian Tissue. [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:01:54 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU Re: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS ONE TOPIC In Paper 4 John Clevenger referenced the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education report: "SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education" (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/start.htm and http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/threea.htm#barr) This is a report on undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering and technology education. The needs of all undergraduates attending various types of colleges and universities are considered. Input and commentary was obtained from students, faculty and other individuals, institutions, organizations and communities across the Nation. I found this report to be both interesting and disturbing. Here are some quotations taken from the report: "When . . students arrive at America's two-year and four-year colleges and universities, they are . . not well prepared for collegiate-level science, mathematics, engineering and technology education." (SME&T) In 1992 only 56 % of the high school students had taken chemistry, 25 % physics. Only 22 % had taken biology, chemistry and physics. "Many faculty in SME&T at the postsecondary level continue to blame the schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly the higher education community has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level . . . SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers. . . . concern over the way the undergraduate SME&T education community is working in the preparation of teachers." " . . overall, students report that their experiences in undergraduate SME&T education are not very positive." "Generally poor teaching by the science and engineering faculty was by far the most common complaint of able students. Nine out of ten one-time NS&E (natural sciences and engineering) majors who switched to a non-NS&E major and three out of four who persevered, describe the quality of teaching as poor overall. The next most frequent complaint of NS&E majors was inadequate faculty advisement, mentioned by more than half of the successful majors." "Important elements in what students saw as good teaching were openness, respect for students, the encouragement of discussion, and the sense of discovering things together. Student comparisons of NS&E teaching styles with those in other disciplines are permeated with strong contrasts: coldness versus warmth; elitism versus democracy; aloofness versus openness; and rejection versus support." "The distancing of faculty from students was sometimes increased by sarcasm, degradation, or ridicule. These practices, apparently rare in non-SME&T courses had the effect of discouraging voluntary student participation in classroom discussions, and created an atmosphere of intimidation." "Lack of student-teacher dialogue. . . " "Evident poor preparation for lectures . . . " "Students . . wanted but typically did not find many illustrations, applications, and/or discussions of implications. . . faculty failed to present material in a stimulating way . . Many students made reference to the "monotone" voices and dry recitations of their instructors lecturing. Class tedium grew in instances where faculty were "over-focused" on getting students to memorize material. Non-majors . . needs for basic understanding of science and mathematics had not been met in lower division SME&T courses. " ". . students identified introductory SME&T courses as a major barrier. Many non-SME&T majors were discouraged (or screened out) from pursuing further studies. SME&T majors found the introductory courses very challenging and often described them as "weed-out". All types of students objected to the large lecture format often used in these courses. . . . Even the recent graduates had no difficulty recalling the generally unpleasant experiences they had had in introductory courses." " . . the competitive atmosphere in introductory SME&T courses . . a barrier to learning" " . . weak relationship between classes and supporting laboratory work . laboratory exercises . . mechanical - seemingly unconnected to concepts of science. Lack of faculty or teaching assistance expertise on site . ." " . . recognized need for cooperation and collaboration. Walls still exist between disciplines and academic units. These walls are ill suited to educating the many different individuals seeking preparation for a vast array of personal and professional goals in an increasingly complex world. . . what is taught does not adequately prepare students for the world they enter upon graduation . . we must alter the institutions to fit the needs of students." Barriers to improvement: "1. Widely varying levels of student ability, and poor preparation for SME&T studies by many. 2. Curricular and pedagogical problems, including a lack of interdisciplinary courses. 3. Ineffective use of instructional technology. 4. A faculty reward system that does not emphasize the importance of instructional effectiveness. 5. The related problem of inadequate use of evaluation for making informed choices about new curricula and teaching methods. 6. Lack of resources for faculty development, for efforts to disseminate improved practices, and to provide modern instructional equipment and changings to their students. 7. Organizational issues: poor institutional articulation AMONG institutions (high schools and colleges; two-year and four-year colleges; colleges and employers and states) and WITHIN institutions (linking teaching and research roles, linking SME&T departments, especially the education and science faculty); resistance to change by key people within academe; indifference to the need for comprehensive change." The SME&T undergraduate education community should: " seek to serve all students . . a. Preparation of K-12 teachers in these fields . . b. Needs of persons going into the technical work force . . c. Preparation of majors in these areas . . develop more effective curricula and pedagogy . . The variety of student preparation requires a variety of pedagogical methods. . . There should be in place a curriculum as flexible as possible. There must be high expectations of every student, but there must also be a welcoming and encouraging climate for learning." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Gold (LPG@PSU.EDU) in a message sent to the CHEMED-L Discussion List on Tuesday, January 27, 1998 stated: "First, students come to college with a very negative view of chemistry. Penn State sends a survey to its incoming freshmen before they arrive on campus. One question asks them what subjects they expect to like and do well in and what subjects do they expect to dislike. For many years chemistry has been at the very bottom of that list; students come here fully expecting to hate chemistry and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, many departments with majors that require chemistry make no effort whatsoever to explain to their new students why they have to take chemistry. The students conclude, not unreasonably, that the requirement exists only for "weed-out" purposes. . The bottom line to all this is that we face a very hostile audience." --------------------------------------------------------------------- I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OF THE NEED FOR CHANGE AND SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Most of the papers in this on-line conference describe change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DURING THE NEXT TWO DAYS PLEASE SUGGEST OTHER TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:03:57 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: MEETING AT BCCE IN AUGUST COME JOIN US AT THE 1998 BCCE The Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE) will hold an open meeting at the BCCE at the University of Waterloo. This meeting provides an opportunity for Committee members to meet you and for you to meet the members of the Committee. We welcome your ideas and suggestions and the opportunity to talk about some of the Committee's plans. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, August 11 at 12:30 PM. Check the Conference schedule for the time and place of the meeting. [ Part 9: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:51:23 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: -WVV- TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION Dear Tom and colleagues, The generalities about student dislike for chemistry seem too sweeping. I have found that during 30 years of teaching many students are undecided about what they like. There is generally a sense of apprehension about taking chemistry. The students hear about the reputation of the chemistry department and are under the impression that the chemistry department is hostile. When I started teaching I know other departments used chemistry as a filter for their admissions committees. They still do. I believe we need to decide why we are in the education business. Do we want our "service " classes to encourage science interest and chemistry literacy or do we want to only train chemists and help other departments sort out their applicants. We have a wonderful opportunity to do a tremendous amount of good. We could choose to educate students to be competent in chemistry topics and simultaneously stimulate their interest in chemistry of everyday life. We need to consider the use of cooperative learning which contradicts normalized grading. It takes an person to help his/her classmates when that help can push their own grade down and someone else's grade up. The strangeness of chemistry to the daily life of people and students is artificial. The gap between science and the public is a serious problem for chemistry. The media hurts us with movies that show chemists and scientists as weird and freaky. The sad thing is that chemists often cultivate the separation between daily life and chemistry. Here is an example of what I mean. I recently attended a conference and a presentation was titled "General Chemistry and Real World Chemistry Experiments" I was immediately interested. I was later surprised to find that the author's view of real world experiments were analytical lab experiments done in testing labs. Well, that certainly is real world for people in the chemistry community, but it is not real world for average non-chemists. This kind of thinking does not "Bridge the Gap" between the public and chemistry. I think the outreach activities of the ACS need to get wider recognition and support. The chemistry industry and chemistry departments across the country need to have more involvement in these outreach efforts. It is essential to make this enhanced outreach effort or else the profession will lose public support and talented people will be lost to chemistry and not consider a science career. The early contacts between students and chemists needs to be less confrontational and more cordial. chemistry is still not user friendly. The present situation is much like closing the barn door after the horse has left. Our students come to us with low and negative expectations partly because our image has been shaped by others. We need to do better to show we are normal people. We also need to show chemistry is useful and part of daily life. I hope these thoughts contribute to the discussion. I try to reach out to the cicle of my students. I have tried to attract student interest in my writings in my study guide for the World of Chemistry. I can see that I need to participate more in a broader outreach effort. Of course the web provides a vehicle for this outreach. Walt, Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 425-747-4455 Luckybel@aol.com wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu [ Part 10: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:51:58 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: re-WVV-Re-topics for discussion Dear Don and colleagues, The comment was made >develop more effective curricula and pedagogy . . > The variety of student preparation requires a variety of pedagogical > methods. . . There should be in place a curriculum as flexible as > possible. > There must be high expectations of every student, but there must > also be a welcoming and encouraging climate for learning." This passage brings up a number of key ideas. Here are some thoughts regarding a few. Often the department's expectations are not communicated to the student. The simple practice of telling students our purposes for teaching the class can help. We should be clearly telling students what we expect and why we have these expectations. We chemists need to consider the value and importance of the students who are on the borderline. We need to be cautious not to focus only on majors and successful students. But these students are valuable to us as educators for many reasons. They can help us answer the question: Why do successful students succeed and how do we define success? All of our students are important to our discipline. Our student population is heterogeneous. Sort of like a chocolate chip cookie. The chips are the prizes in the cookie but if we only had chips we wouldn't have a cookie. I believe there are multiple goals for chemical education. Some are immediate goals, while others are long term goals. These short and long goals need to be identified and broadly discussed. I have my opinions on this issue, and I'd be happy to share them if you are interested. I also believe that we have placed too much attention on short term goals and often neglected the others. There needs to be a balance. These goals must clearly stated to our students along with the logic behind them. People don't accept much on faith these days. Critical thinking is at work in the student population even though we may not recognize it sometimes. I hope this provokes discussion. Walt Dr. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 luckybel@aol.com wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu [ Part 11: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:51:00 EDT From: to2 Subject: Re: TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION >"SME&T programs have not taken >seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality >of America's teachers. . . . concern over the way the undergraduate >SME&T education community is working in the preparation of teachers." NSF has tried to help by pumping money into their Collaboratives for Teacher Preparation programs. (I'm co-PI of one such grant here in Maryland). But it's tough to change culture. The fact is that pre-service teachers are a small fraction of the introductory chemistry audience. We also have a separate introductory chemistry course here for non-science majors, but it has a small enrollment compared to the general chemistry program. Small enrollment = small mindshare. So when the NSF (and College of Education faculty) says we should totally change our teaching culture to meet the needs of future teachers, there's bound to be some doubters. I agree that it's important, but I think the process of improvement will be slower and more painful than we (and the NSF) would like. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry University of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry College Park, MD 20742 Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation (301) 405-1831 to2@umail.umd.edu FAX: (301) 314-9121 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh [ Part 12: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:56:02 -0500 From: John V Kenkel Subject: Reply to Walt Volland Hi all, The negative perception of the general public to chemistry is so "ingrained" that it's going to have to be a slow change over time. The key I believe is better science taught at the elementary and high school levels AND making it more relevant to students' lives. Regarding the relevancy issue, I disagree with Walt Volland's comment: "I recently attended a conference and a presentation was titled "General Chemistry and Real World Chemistry Experiments" I was immediately interested. I was later surprised to find that the author's view of real world experiments were analytical lab experiments done in testing labs. Well, that certainly is real world for people in the chemistry community, but it is not real world for average non-chemists. This kind of thinking does not "Bridge the Gap" between the public and chemistry." I say analytical lab experiments in a testing lab certainly CAN BE real world for the average non-chemist, perhaps more real-world than anything we can do!! When I was an undergraduate, I would have changed my major if not for the connection of chemical analysis to the real world. I can think of dozens of examples: water, soil, air, food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, hygiene products, fuels - the list can go on and on. So on the contrary, Walt, I think it would bridge the gap very well and is probably the best way to do it! John Kenkel Southeast Community College Lincoln, Nebraska [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:41:35 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: Re: TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Donald Rosenthal wrote: --snip-- > In Paper 4 John Clevenger referenced the NSF Division of Undergraduate > Education report: > > "SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education" > > (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/start.htm and > http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/threea.htm#barr) --snip-- > > Barriers to improvement: > > "1. Widely varying levels of student ability, and poor preparation for > SME&T studies by many. This is a result of the school systems K-12 and beyond. Complaining about it will not help. A reasonable system of prerequisites in postsecondary institutions could do a lot to alleviate this situation. Historically, administrators are very reluctant to do anything which might discourage enrollment. This practice is shameful. > 2. Curricular and pedagogical problems, including a lack of > interdisciplinary courses. IMHO, the problem is more from a lack of discipline across the curriculum. If students are required to study for all their classes, they will not be so horrified when they enter science classes. Although I do not know much about the non-science areas, I do know there are things there that should require some self discipline. > 3. Ineffective use of instructional technology. IMHO, instructional technology has become so much of a fad that it is bound to cause problems of one kind or another. Administrators know little about it except it is new and trendy and go to great lengths to be associated with anything which has PR value. Most schools buy hardware. Many purchase little or no software. Few provide even minimal technical support. ((I call this the "field of dreams" mentality.) Most faculty are not given any time to determine how to use technology effectively. Those of us who do have generally do this at considerable cost of personal time and even $. > 4. A faculty reward system that does not emphasize the importance of > instructional effectiveness. This varies a lot with the type of institution. Since my school is a teaching only institution, there is at least some attempt to do this. The problems come with objectively evaluating this. At least some of our success or lack of it is due to factors we have no control over, such as students, resources etc. > 5. The related problem of inadequate use of evaluation for making > informed choices about new curricula and teaching methods. As best as I can determine, education is a culture built upon buzzwords and novelty. The complexity of the process makes objective study and choices difficult at best. > 6. Lack of resources for faculty development, for efforts to > disseminate improved practices, and to provide modern instructional > equipment and changings to their students. Faculty development has become a bit of a fad amoung administrators. Since really effective processes (attending discipline specific conferences, refresher classes, sebatical leaves, or even professional association membership dues) are expensive, we have a lot of token things which are less expensive but only waste time. Given the financial pressures on education, this is not likely to change. > 7. Organizational issues: poor institutional articulation AMONG > institutions (high schools and colleges; two-year and four-year > colleges; colleges and employers and states) and WITHIN institutions > (linking teaching and research roles, linking SME&T departments, > especially the education and science faculty); resistance to change > by key people within academe; indifference to the need for > comprehensive change." Here in Florida, we have had very good articulation with 4 year institutions. Recent legislation aimed at cost containment is causing the effectiveness of these to be comprimised. Comprehensive change cannot be legislated from the top in the way that politicians and administrators think. Standards is a prime example. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks, standards are not set by committees etc. Standards are only set when we make up tests or other evaluation devices, when we grade tests or other results, and when we issue grades for the term. When I was in industry there was a saying "Processes are not changed by profound reasoning but by the turning of valves." > The SME&T undergraduate education community should: > " seek to serve all students . . > a. Preparation of K-12 teachers in these fields . . > b. Needs of persons going into the technical work force . . > c. Preparation of majors in these areas . . > > develop more effective curricula and pedagogy . . > The variety of student preparation requires a variety of pedagogical > methods. . . There should be in place a curriculum as flexible as > possible. > There must be high expectations of every student, but there must > also be a welcoming and encouraging climate for learning." These things will only happen when faculty have the time and resources to do something about them. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:48:52 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: BEGIN DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS BEGIN DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS It is Monday, April 27. This is the first of three weeks for the discussion of selected topics. THIS WEEK WILL BE DEVOTED TO THE GENERAL DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STUDENTS (either directly in teaching them or indirectly by influencing their prior education or society at-large) What are you presently be doing which may be of interest and useful to others? What ideas and suggestions do you have? Last week Walt Volland (4-24 - 12:51 and 13:51), Tom O'Haver (4-24 - 13:51), John Kenkel (4-24 - 13:56) and Richard Pendarvis (4-25 - 21:41) mentioned some things about change and meeting student needs. I hope we can continue this dialogue. This week will be used for the consideration of this topic. I suggest that next week (May 4 to 8) be used to discuss "Effective Ways to Use Instructional Technology and What Technologies are Most Useful" The topic for the final week (May 11 to 15) has not yet been selected. Suggestions are welcome. Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:23:40 -0400 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: TJZ Re: TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION Dear Colleagues I found the comments by Richard O. Pendarvis to be extremely pessimistic. I have worked hard to introduce more technology in my courses, use more effective pedagogy, and engage students in self directed study. The results are good but not miraculous. They are good enough for me to continue to work in this direction in spite of minimal local collegial support, insufficient funding, and no monetary rewards. Many of my colleagues in teaching are doing the same. We will continue to push the envelope and work to make science more interesting for our students inch by inch. The rewards are in the learning we do see and the interesting classes we share with our students. Small gains are enough sometimes in classes that last one semester. There are no quick fixes, just hard work and love of our discipline. Students can see this and they do respond.. Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Professor of Chemistry Department of Chemistry Niagara University Niagara University, NY 14109 theresaz@localnet.com http://www.niagara.edu/~tjz/ 716-639-0762 (H - voice, voice mail and fax) 716-286-8257 (O - voice and voice mail) [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:14:58 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: W1 - DR: WHAT WE CAN DO - Students Writing a Paper, etc. W1 - Week 1 Post Conference Discussion L. Peter Gold (CHEMED-L message of 1-27-98) stated: "At Penn State we have about fifty four-year degree programs that require at least one semester of general chemistry. . . . many departments with majors that require chemistry make no effort whatsoever to explain to their students why they have to take chemistry. . . . It is simply impossible for me to address simultaneously and meaningfully the relevance of chemistry to would-be majors in, . . electrical engineering, pre-med, turfgrass management, animal bioscience, and geology." A. One recent trend is to promote writing throughout the curriculum. Early in the first semester of General Chemistry students could be asked to write a paper (500 words or more in length) which would be turned in at the end of the course. If the course is required in their major, students would be asked to consider why and what do people in their profession need to know about chemistry? If the course is required to satisfy a science (or general) elective, what did they learn about the nature of science which may be useful to them in their careers, as citizens and as voters? Have any schools already done anything like this? It would be useful to summarize some of these responses on a Website. B. Should the American Chemical Society be gathering such information from other professional societies, educators, industry and government? C. Should the Journal of Chemical Education be providing such information to students and educators? [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:18:29 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: W1 - DR: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU SOME QUESTIONS FOR WALT VOLLAND AND OTHERS In his messages of 4-24-98 - 12:51 and 13:51 Walt Volland said: > We could choose to be competent in chemistry topics and > simultaneously stimulate their interest in the chemistry of > everday life. Some attempt to accomplish these objectives is reflected in the textbooks and the classroom today. If we wish to change student and public attitudes, we need to do more. Specifically, what do you propose for the textbooks and the classroom? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > I think the outreach activities of the ACS need to get wider > recognition and support. The chemistry industry and chemistry > departments across the country need to have more involvement > in these outreach efforts. To which specific outreach efforts are you referring? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > chemistry is not user friendly In what ways is chemistry not user friendly? Is it less user friendly than biology, mathematics, physics, english, history, foreign languages or social science? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Why do . . students succeed and how do we define success? Good questions. What are your answers to these questions? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > I believe there are multiple goals for chemical education. > Some are immediate goals, while others are long term goals. . . > These goals must be clearly stated to our students along with the > logic behind them. What are these immediate and long term goals? What is the logic behind them? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Rosenthal Department of Chemistry Clarkson University Potsdam NY 13699-5810 ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU 315-265-9242 [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:35:16 -0400 From: Bert Ramsay Subject: BR: What am I doing that might be useful Open Discussion: Re: What I am/have been doing that might be useful: (I will try to be as short, and subtle as possible - and non-commercial. Perhaps comments would be better for next open discussion.) I believe I have developed an individualized tutorial system that guarantees (with 1 qualification - see * below) students will be able to solve chemistry calculation problems using paper and pencil. This system has been under development for some 9 years - though, of course, it still needs the kind of evaluation that would be overwhelmingly persuasive. (* Of course, the students must do the needed amount of work - but since the tutor is "sitting behind them" monitoring what they are/are not doing, they can not avoid being successful - unless, of course, they are willing to tell their tutor that they don't have the time to do what is needed to become successful.) Bert Ramsay, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Eastern Michigan University and entrepreneur - as President (and rest of company positions), Chemical Concepts Corporation. [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:54:11 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS I have had much better results from computer aided instruction than anything else. The interactive nature of the medium provides much more effective use of student time than anything else I have tried. Students have a favorable opinion of this because it has helped them make better grades. It could be thought of as a more effective form of studying. Our problem with this as with many other aspects of technology is the "field of dreams" mentality that many administrators have about software. Actually, the first part of this could be useful. Many schools have or will buy hardware for appearances. What is needed is software to make it do some good. The British government did something interesting that the US could learn from. They funded a "Computer Teaching Initiative" that developed highly specific software for many fields including chemistry. Although it has some failings, the idea is a good one. CAI software is probably the most "portable" thing that could be done to advance chemical education today. Much of the hardware is already available even if it was bought for peculiar reasons. The ACS JCE software is a good effort in this direction but it is not going far enough. It is somewhat fragmentary and it does afterall cost something. Many schools have nothing left to pay for software. If the government (or someone else) were to provide highly specific software covering the curriculum of most chemistry courses, the effect could be enormous. The government is probably the only player with the resources to do something like this. It would be expensive but so are the things being done now. Whether or not NSF or other agencies really want to effect real change is another issue. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:51:24 -0400 From: Bill Vining Subject: Re: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS RP wrote: >If the government (or someone else) were to provide highly specific >software covering the curriculum of most chemistry courses, the effect >could be enormous. The government is probably the only player with the >resources to do something like this. It would be expensive but so are >the things being done now. > >Whether or not NSF or other agencies really want to effect real change >is another issue. I've wondered for quite a while why the govt. doesn't just throw a couple million at every course we teach, make really useful software, and be done with it. The only reason I can think of is that the opinions of faculty as to what is useful varies too widely for general acceptance. That, of course, does not fit with the general similarity with which those same faculty choose textbooks. Maybe it's that we feel free to question that which is new (technology) while accepting as useful that which is established (lectures). Or just don't know how to approach questioning it. However, I think it is too early in the software-in-education cycle to take a chance of locking much in to place. We are still figuring out new ways for us to teach and for our students to learn. The whole distance/distributed learning thing needs a few years to settle out. I'm pretty happy with the current mix of govt. grant/publisher activity. It is creating a mix of software styles for us to try out with our own individual teaching styles. Bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Vining Associate Professor of Chemical Education and Director of General Chemistry Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 413-545-2352 Fax: 413-545-5410 http://soulcatcher.chem.umass.edu [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:37:56 -0400 From: Reed Howald Subject: Re: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS At 08:51 AM 4/28/98 -0400, you wrote: >RP wrote: > >>If the government (or someone else) were to provide highly specific >>software covering the curriculum of most chemistry courses, the effect >>could be enormous. Remember the Soviet Union. I expect only a minimal effect from a planned or government run economy/ >The government is probably the only player with the >>resources to do something like this. The resources are in the people, and the private sector knows how to get money in mass markets, as in providing music. Unfortunately the education market is very limited. The best educational technology available is the general purpose stuff developed for other markets: word processors and spreadsheets. > It would be expensive but so are >>the things being done now. The hardware problems are well along to being solved. We are never going to have the latest and best computers in the average classroom, but we can do a lot with old computers. >> >>Whether or not NSF or other agencies really want to effect real change >>is another issue. I have no doubt but that NSF and other agencies want to support real changes in education. It is not any clearer to them than it is to us how to do this. It is clear that really fundamental changes will need to come from teachers, and individual decisions that something works or does not work with their students. > >I've wondered for quite a while why the govt. doesn't just throw a couple >million at every course we teach, make really useful software, and be done >with it. I am pretty sure that this approach would be a waste of money. > The only reason I can think of is that the opinions of faculty as >to what is useful varies too widely for general acceptance. There is a lot of truth here. In fact the only teaching software that I can envision as really successful is going to have to allow for manageable modifications by individual teachers to fit the needs of their current students. > That, of >course, does not fit with the general similarity with which those same >faculty choose textbooks. Not too surprising. Faculty are not the ones who have to use the textbooks. Chemistry textbooks used to have very substantial variety, as appropriate to a niche market. But tremendous profits are possible on a widely adopted textbook for a large enrollment course like freshman chemistry, and all the publishers are aiming at this. And we teachers are so conservative in textbook adoption that real innovation is not going to bring immediate commercial success, and our choice of textbooks is very limited. > Maybe it's that we feel free to question that >which is new (technology) while accepting as useful that which is >established (lectures). Or just don't know how to approach questioning it. > The one way to question textbooks in the current situation is to ignore the required textbook. Many of our students are not buying them. >However, I think it is too early in the software-in-education cycle to take >a chance of locking much in to place. We are still figuring out new ways >for us to teach and for our students to learn. This process of figuring out new ways will not slow down. So what we can accept is a general software framework which can be adapted to teaching any material in any chosen way. >The whole >distance/distributed learning thing needs a few years to settle out. I'm >pretty happy with the current mix of govt. grant/publisher activity. It is >creating a mix of software styles for us to try out with our own individual >teaching styles. There is one important piece that is present in the current mix, but not to the extent we really need. There is some really good teacher developed shareware, worth adoption by thousands of teachers and valuable enough to students to pay real money for. What we lack is a working mechanism to get student purchase money for software into the hands of teachers who will continue to improve and update it. Reed Howald Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Montana State University Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59717 U.S.A. howald@montana.edu [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:51:11 -0700 From: George Wiger Subject: Re: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS I think both the initial point and the part of the response I included make critical points. Over the past few years, I have developed the view that not only is centralization the wrong way to go, but the WWW has made it an obsolete concept. My view is that the WWW let's each of us develop program specific CAI applications and share them. Now suppose all 800 members of this conference wrote one such application and we had an efficient means of distribution. My feeling is that what would develop would be an incrediblly rich library on which to draw. Further the types of collaborations that would develop would enrich each of us personally. George Wiger gwiger@chemistry.csudh.edu http://chemistry.csudh.edu/webapps.html [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:21:30 -0400 From: George Long Subject: Re: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS I couldn't agree more. I would include in this collaboration in some manner, all of our students, since they are the ones doing the learning, and our best software is worthless with out students who are willing and interested in using it. Now, saying this, and doing it are two different things. Obviously with 800 different apps, we would need some kind of database to organize them, some support to help us use them, Access to the source code (and documentation) to help us build on them, And some way to be paid to give us the time to do the development, as well as some kind of recognition that brings satisfaction. Then the students must realize the value of using the material, and working with their colleagues and peers. Some don't see the value in coming to class, much less talking about chemistry with someone. This is a big task, but not undoable. - **************************************************************************** Dr. George R. Long grlong@grove.iup.edu http://www.iup.edu/~grlong/ Department of Chemistry Indiana University of PA Indiana PA, 15705 **************************************************************************** [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:28:10 -0400 From: "L. Peter Gold" Subject: Re: W1 - DR: WHAT WE CAN DO - Students Writing a Paper, etc. At 02:14 PM 4/27/98 EDT, Donald Rosenthal wrote: >W1 - Week 1 Post Conference Discussion [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:03:24 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Re: ROP: DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TOPICS - MJC First you would need to design and set up a standard user interface for these 800 applications, otherwise our students would need to learn 800 different programs. Also, faculty doing such work should get recognition for professional development so that they can put in the effort needed. As I understand it the web will eventually have the means to provide payment to authors/programers when their work is used. However, the question of who will pay when a student uses a tool is another problem. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI [ Part 8: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:07:26 -0400 From: Tim Champion Subject: Re: ROP-Discussion of Selected Topics-TDC How about a Journal of Science Ed Software (distributed as both print and software) where: -a standard user interface is strongly encouraged (HTML / Java as an authoring language? similar interface or standard categories for interfaces) -source code is disclosed and modification allowed by the user (or only upon shareware fee payment) -documentation is extensive (perhaps full doc avail upon pymt as above) -faculty get pub credit (peer reviewed) (not $$ but something) -available via web -free samples, minimum cost for full access. -full access costs grants site license or access to this published material as shareware (with perhaps a standard fee/schedule for items published in this journal --based on # copies anticipated by end user? This still comes down to a honor system ). Essentially, this is a reviewed shareware distribution site. Maybe this is just a reinvention of JCE: Software. I like JCE/SW stuff that I have but it costs too much for me to get regularly and I never seen that much modification could be done (nothing is really made with that in mind). I have a project I've been working on for several years now with mastery learning, math-chem relationship and CAI. I have a lot of trouble setting aside time to work on it even though the units I have seem to work pretty well for those students who used them (the students who don't use them are another problem). If I perceived my rewards stemming from this effort, I'd probably attack it with more vigor. Dr. Tim Champion Associate Professor of Chemistry Natural Sciences Department Johnson C. Smith University Charlotte, NC 28216 Phones: voice 704-378-1155; fax 704-378-1213; home 704-542-7543 E mail: tchampion@jcsu.edu [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:39:17 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WVV-Response- W1 - DR: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU Dear Colleagues, Don really asked for a lot of answers and I'm willing to give some that seem reasonable to me. Here we go. SOME QUESTIONS FOR WALT VOLLAND AND OTHERS In his messages of 4-24-98 - 12:51 and 13:51 Walt Volland said: I'm going to respond to the questions incrementally. > We could choose to be competent in chemistry topics and > simultaneously stimulate their interest in the chemistry of > everyday life. Some attempt to accomplish these objectives is reflected in the textbooks and the classroom today. If we wish to change student and public attitudes, we need to do more. Specifically, what do you propose for the textbooks and the classroom? The current texts include some excellent vignettes on applications of chemistry in daily life. The problem is that not all students are uniformly interested in the items included. The instructors rarely test students on these insert topics so practical students frequently skip past them. This is similar to what students do when they don't read tables or diagrams in a text. I believe students should be held responsible for the material in these real life vignettes. Quizzes or exams should include questions about them. I also think that students should be encouraged to look at current events and have some homework assignments that require linking course topics to news items. At least one social policy issue assignment should be included in a course. Students in a small group, three to five, should be required to identify arguments on both sides of some social policy issue that has a science component. This could be FDA rules on irradiation of food to curb e. coli or the pros and cons of oxygenating gasoline. The long term social awareness of science related issues should be pointed out. ___________________________________ > I think the outreach activities of the ACS need to get wider > recognition and support. The chemistry industry and chemistry > departments across the country need to have more involvement > in these outreach efforts. To which specific outreach efforts are you referring? The ACS high school Olympics is one example. Increased distribution and publicity for K-12 oriented publications like Chem Matters, and WunderScience could probably improve the acceptance of chemistry. > chemistry is not user friendly In what ways is chemistry not user friendly? Is it less user friendly than biology, mathematics, physics, english, history, foreign languages or social science? Chemistry is really neutral when considering the idea of "user friendly" The trouble is with the way the public views "chemicals" and the complexity of the field. There aren't enough efforts made to point out that baking a cake is an aspect of chemistry. The simple activities like doing laundry and fertilizing the lawn involve chemical systems and issues. The translation of chemistry into these simple as well as the "normal" more complex issues needs to be expanded. > Why do . . students succeed and how do we define success? Good questions. What are your answers to these questions? I believe students succeed in chemistry because some individual member of the chemistry community took an interest in the student at some point in the student's career. This turning point usually sets the future chemist on the path that he/she follows. If this interaction occurs the student will be self motivating and will persevere, but if it does not then the system of hard knocks will wear the student down. I know I went through positive experiences and the rough spots of my education were more tolerable because of that positive reinforcement. I think the success threshold is also dependent on what the student wants. They define their own success or satisfaction level. I believe my students should have a set of skills in chemistry that can be refreshed with some study and review. I think students should view processes in terms of molecular level processes. I think success is matched with the ability to deal with new chemical concepts in a systematic logical manner. > I believe there are multiple goals for chemical education. > Some are immediate goals, while others are long term goals. . . > These goals must be clearly stated to our students along with the > logic behind them. What are these immediate and long term goals? What is the logic behind them? I feel this is one of the most neglected areas of chemical education. I think short term goals are the immediate skills or traditional course content topics like how to balance and equation or solve and equilibrium problem. These are items that are tested immediately during the course. I believe there are also a large number of long term goals for us. These long term goals are related to attitudes and interest in science and chemistry. I try to create a lasting interest in chemistry among my students. I work to create an attitude in their minds when they think of chemistry. I want them to have the opinion that chemistry classes were positive experiences. These are only a few ideas on this topic. SOME QUESTIONS FOR WALT VOLLAND AND OTHERS In his messages of 4-24-98 - 12:51 and 13:51 Walt Volland said: [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:21:12 +0000 From: George Long Subject: Re: WVV-Response- W1 - DR: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU At 04:39 AM 4/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >At least one social policy issue assignment should be included in a course. >Students in a small group, three to five, should be required to identify >arguments on both sides of some social policy issue that has a science >component. This could be FDA rules on irradiation of food to curb e. coli or >the pros and cons of oxygenating gasoline. The long term social awareness of >science related issues should be pointed out. >___________________________________ I have an alternative to this suggestion that would accomplish the same goal. Why not require that all social studies classes deal with at least 1 social policy issue related to science ? This should be in history classes, Poly. Sci., sociology, etc. Science and technology is becoming the driving force in many of the current day policy decisions, These disciplines should address this issue, rather than add one more item for us to address. **************************************************************************** Dr. George R. Long grlong@grove.iup.edu http://www.iup.edu/~grlong/ Department of Chemistry Indiana University of PA Indiana PA, 15705 **************************************************************************** [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:41:49 -0400 From: "William F. Polik" Subject: Students Not Reading Textbook Is it just my impression, or is it a more general observation shared by others, that students (even "good" students) are not reading textbooks as much as they used to. Rather, the primary primary use of textbooks often seems to be for finding example problems similar to assigned homework problems. I have been wondering why this might be the case. Could it be that we faculty might be overloading our students with so many assignments and sources of information (lecture notes, handouts, WWW and CD-ROM assignments, topic-oriented modules, assigned textbook readings, assigned homework problems, ...) that reading the textbook for its content either is lowered in priority due to time constraints or simply becomes "lost in the shuffle"? I would be interested to know if others share this observation and if so * Should we care? and *What are the underlying reasons? Will Polik =================================================================== William F. Polik email: polik@hope.edu Department of Chemistry url: http://sgi.chem.hope.edu/~polik Hope College phone: (616) 395-7639 35 East 12th Street fax: (616) 395-7118 Holland, MI 49422-9000 =================================================================== [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:25:02 -0500 From: Marcy Towns <00mhtowns@BSU.EDU> Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Will wrote: > >Is it just my impression, or is it a more general observation shared by >others, that students (even "good" students) are not reading textbooks as >much as they used to. Rather, the primary primary use of textbooks often >seems to be for finding example problems similar to assigned homework >problems. I have also seen evidence of this same behavior. > >I have been wondering why this might be the case. Could it be that we >faculty might be overloading our students with so many assignments and >sources of information (lecture notes, handouts, WWW and CD-ROM >assignments, topic-oriented modules, assigned textbook readings, assigned >homework problems, ...) that reading the textbook for its content either is >lowered in priority due to time constraints or simply becomes "lost in the >shuffle"? > One of the problems I see in my students is that they are taking somewhere between 15-18 hours (maybe 12 in some cases) across at least 3 and maybe up to 5 or 6 courses, most of my students work at least part time, and some of them are engaged in research. They are very pressed for time and may have trouble just managing their time effectively. My one thought is that three 5 hour classes would be much better than five 3 hour classes! Getting back to Will's comments, what he writes has merit, especially if the sources of information are coming from 3, 4, or 5 courses simultaneously. I am not sure what the "answer" is, but I am curious to know what others have observed. Marcy. Marcy Towns Assistant Professor of Chemistry Ball State University Cooper Hall Muncie, IN 47306 765-285-8075 765-285-2351 (FAX) [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:39:12 -0500 From: Mike Epstein Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Textbooks are currently more relevant and interesting than 30 years ago when I was in college. I don't think the effect results from a multimedia overload on the part of instructors. It is simply a fact of life that: (a) reading the textbook takes time, (b) students have a limited amount of time, so (c) they read only what has to be read. The argument could be made that students have less time today for study then they did 30 years ago, since there is much more freedom (less discipline) on campus, resulting in activities that interfere with study A bit closer to home, I might ask how many of us read instruction manuals before we use new software and hardware. Instead, we use the instruction manuals as references when we run into problems. Perhaps this is a good argument for open book exams, where textbooks are used as reference sources. Mike Epstein -----Original Message----- From: William F. Polik To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:58 AM Subject: Students Not Reading Textbook At 10:37 AM 4/28/98 -0400, Reed Howald wrote: >At 08:51 AM 4/28/98 -0400, Bill Vining wrote: >Not too surprising. Faculty are not the ones who have to use the >textbooks. Chemistry textbooks used to have very substantial variety, as >appropriate to a niche market. But tremendous profits are possible on >a widely adopted textbook for a large enrollment course like freshman >chemistry, >and all the publishers are aiming at this. And we teachers are so >conservative >in textbook adoption that real innovation is not going to bring immediate >commercial success, and our choice of textbooks is very limited. > >> Maybe it's that we feel free to question that >>which is new (technology) while accepting as useful that which is >>established (lectures). Or just don't know how to approach questioning it. >> > >The one way to question textbooks in the current situation is to ignore the >required textbook. Many of our students are not buying them. Is it just my impression, or is it a more general observation shared by others, that students (even "good" students) are not reading textbooks as much as they used to. Rather, the primary primary use of textbooks often seems to be for finding example problems similar to assigned homework problems. I have been wondering why this might be the case. Could it be that we faculty might be overloading our students with so many assignments and sources of information (lecture notes, handouts, WWW and CD-ROM assignments, topic-oriented modules, assigned textbook readings, assigned homework problems, ...) that reading the textbook for its content either is lowered in priority due to time constraints or simply becomes "lost in the shuffle"? I would be interested to know if others share this observation and if so * Should we care? and *What are the underlying reasons? Will Polik =================================================================== William F. Polik email: polik@hope.edu Department of Chemistry url: http://sgi.chem.hope.edu/~polik Hope College phone: (616) 395-7639 35 East 12th Street fax: (616) 395-7118 Holland, MI 49422-9000 =================================================================== [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:41:47 -0400 From: patricia mabrouk Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook I think the issues involved are complicated and yet simple all at the same time. We choose based on convenience and our interests, likes, and dislikes. We don't see textbooks the same way we did as students and therefore don't select textbooks that our students can use. In 1990-1991, at my institution, the general chemistry teaching faculty looked at a variety of textbooks on the market. We all seemed to go after the slick color ones and the ones that "did it all" as well as those "old stand-bys" - the books everyone had fashioned their yellowed lecture notes after. I asked several undergraduates in my lab to look at the various books and tell me which one they liked and why they liked it. Of all the ones on the market then, they selected Chang which then was done in two colors. They liked the clear explanations, the minimum amount of extraneous information, and the large number of practice problems available to them. This past spring the engineering general chemistry faculty met to discuss a new textbook and it was no different. So, I offered my summer engineering class two books -the official text and a book (Jones) that I felt they would like based on student consultation. I found a number of students commented on the class student evalation about how much they disliked the official text and how useful the Jones text was. The students particularly liked the in-text single statement summations found at the end of each section that summarize the key point that the textbooks authors are attempting to communicate. Our students come from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. The majority aren't interested in chemistry. For them, the class is merely a requirement to be fulfilled and often a hurdle or stumbling block. They want to know what they need to know to pass the exams (minimum information) and they want to be able to practice the material on which they will be tested. They want explanations in clear and simple language and they want to know that taking the time to understand the wealth of material in the text will count in a tangible way (good test scores and good grades). I believe we do bombard our students with far too much information from too many sources. The push for electronic textbooks and materials troubles me. 75% of my students have ready access to a computer and internet and only half of these students have a CD ROM drive. Watching a number of them use the www I have found they spend most of their time finding copious amounts of information and printing it out. They ARE overwhelmed with the quantity of information and do not know how to sift it and find information of true value. Should we care? I think we are fools if we don't. We are cheating the next generation of scientists and policy makers, the folks who will choose to invest in science (NSF and NIH funding) or invest in other areas. Pam :) Mabrouk pmabrouk@lynx.neu.edu [ Part 8: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:45:25 -0400 From: "L. Peter Gold" Subject: Re: W1 - DR: WHAT WE CAN DO - Students Writing a Paper, etc. At 02:14 PM 4/27/98 EDT, Donald Rosenthal wrote: >W1 - Week 1 Post Conference Discussion > > A. One recent trend is to promote writing throughout the curriculum. > Early in the first semester of General Chemistry students could be > asked to write a paper (500 words or more in length) which would be > turned in at the end of the course. > B. Should the American Chemical Society be gathering such information > from other professional societies, educators, industry and government? > > C. Should the Journal of Chemical Education be providing such > information to students and educators? > I think these are all good ideas but by themselves they will not have much effect on student views of the relevance of chemistry to their intended career. They really need to get strong, clear, and convincing messages from the faculty in their major departments. Many of them are not getting such messages, at least at Penn State, for several reasons. (FYI, roughly half of our general chemistry students plan to enter some kind of engineering major; the other half plan to enter majors in some basic or applied biological field.) First, many of our students, particularly the would-be engineers, have little or no contact with their major department before their fourth or fifth semester. (We hope that a new University-wide freshman seminar requirement will eventually improve that situation.) Second, many of our students in general chemistry are not at all sure what major they want to enter. Third, I suspect that in some departments (and I am now talking about all schools, not just Penn State) the faculty do not think that chemistry is important. Chemistry is in their curriculum because of tradition, professional accreditation or licensing requirements, or professional school admissions requirements. There are several fields where a great difference exists between the chemists and the faculty in that field about how important chemistry is to those fields. A recent discussion on chemed-l revealed a substantial discrepancy between the chemists' view of the importance of chemistry to nurses and the view of the nursing faculty members as illustrated by the amount of chemistry they require of their students. Engineering departments have been cutting back their chemistry requirements. At Penn State, many engineering majors require only one semester each of chemistry lecture and lab. One of them requires only one semester of lecture with no lab. It's going to take more than a 500-word paper or some handouts from the ACS to convince those students that chemistry is relevant to what they want to do. [Many readers of my original posting replied by asking why Penn State does not offer several general chemistry course sequences with different orientations (e.g. engineering, biology). There are several major considerations that make this impractical for us. For instance, our introductory courses are given at eignteen other Penn State campuses throughout the state, almost all of which are too small to offer more than one general chemistry course sequence; we must maintain a reasonable degree of articulation among all locations. We are trying to introduce some flexibility in the general (and organic) lab courses so students can choose at least some of their experiments to be ones illustrative of their interests. There are already in place some experiments for the biologically-oriented students and we are planning some materials-oriented experiments also.] ------------------------------------------------------ L. Peter Gold phone (814) 865-7694 Professor of Chemistry fax (814) 865-3314 Penn State University 152 Davey Lab E-mail: LPG@PSU.EDU University Park PA 16802 ------------------------------------------------------ [ Part 9: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:48:48 -0500 From: sc18 Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook [ Part 10: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:08:35 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: WVV-Response- W1 - DR: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU Your suggestion is a good one; however, we chemistry faculty can change what we do easier than what the social science faculty do. It is more likely that we can make the case for the social relevancy of chemistry better than the socialigists. Of course there is the option of interdiscuplinary courses. Cheers Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 11: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:59:38 -0400 From: "O. Frederick Onasch" Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook More and more people are doing less and less reading in general. In fact quite a few of the freshmen do not read very well at all. Much time is spent at our college in remedial education, mostly because the students do not read well. Science books are "beyond the reading level of our students" as I have been told many times. The object being that I should lower the level. When are we going to address the problem of the K-12 education in our own communities so that this problem will be addressed when students are first learning? Must I even mention the math abilities of our students? Can we at Delhi be the only ones having this seemingly general problem? Textbooks are currently more relevant and interesting than 30 years ago when I was in college. I don't think the effect results from a multimedia overload on the part of instructors. It is simply a fact of life that: (a) reading the textbook takes time, (b) students have a limited amount of time, so (c) they read only what has to be read. The argument could be made that students have less time today for study then they did 30 years ago, since there is much more freedom (less discipline) on campus, resulting in activities that interfere with study A bit closer to home, I might ask how many of us read instruction manuals before we use new software and hardware. Instead, we use the instruction manuals as references when we run into problems. Perhaps this is a good argument for open book exams, where textbooks are used as reference sources. Mike Epstein [ Part 12: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:15:23 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: wvv-Re:-Students Not Reading Textbook Dear Colleagues, I see a wide range of text reading. There are large number of students who use the distributed notes as a substitute for reading the text, but this works only when the faculty member is essentialy digesting the text for the class. A lecture that is a "Readers Digest" of the text will naturally shut down text reading. Regards, Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 13: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:34:23 -0400 From: "L. Peter Gold" Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook At 08:41 AM 4/29/98 -0400, William F. Polik wrote: >Is it just my impression, or is it a more general observation shared by >others, that students (even "good" students) are not reading textbooks as >much as they used to. A year or so ago a high-school chemistry teacher posted a message to chemed-l asking how he could keep his students from reading their chemistry textbooks. The problem was, he, said, that he prepared and executed his lesson plans with great care but some of the students insisted on reading the book, which confused them. His posting elicited a number of outraged replies but also many sympathetic responses, particularly from other high-school teachers. ------------------------------------------------------ L. Peter Gold phone (814) 865-7694 Professor of Chemistry fax (814) 865-3314 Penn State University 152 Davey Lab E-mail: LPG@PSU.EDU University Park PA 16802 ------------------------------------------------------ [ Part 14: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:30:00 EDT From: to2 Subject: TOH - Let government do it? RP wrote: >If the government (or someone else) were to provide highly specific >software covering the curriculum of most chemistry courses, the effect >could be enormous. The government is probably the only player with the >resources to do something like this. What resources? Who in the government cares or knows much about chemical education??? Sure, they employ lots of chemists (at FDA, USDA, NIST, EPA, etc) but not chemical educators. NSF manages programs and grants, but it's not a primary producer. The only significant workforce of computer-literate chemical educators is WE OURSELVES. Tom O'Haver [ Part 15: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:16:25 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: TOH - Let government do it? Friends: The government is sponsoring the development of several programs for General Chemistry, which will (or do) include computer aspects. But one of the major problems with CAI materials is that instructors find an NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude, i.e., 'that's not the way I do it!, even thought the stuff is pretty good.' Some instructors will adopt materials developed other places, with reservation. The capability to tailor the programs to individual specifications is difficult to program. Tom O'Haver says:"The only significant workforce of computer-literate chemical educators is WE OURSELVES." He knows whereof he speaks: those of you unfamiliar with HIS MacSpectrum program, which won an EDUCOM award several years ago should see it - it was designed principally (I believe) for Analytical Chemistry. But ask Tom about its availability (OR Tom, tell us and save yourself a lot of replying!). Another of the individual producers was Stan Smith - his stuff is still being used by legions of students Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ Of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu [ Part 16: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:38:15 -0500 From: John V Kenkel Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Textbooks are like audio-visuals, CAI programs and other ancillaries - they don't work well unless they take the same approach as the instructor. Students get confused by even the smallest tidbits in textbooks, etc., that stray from the content of the course as presented by the instructor. Hence, students stop reading the book so as to avoid the confusion. My own approach was shaped by the textbooks I used when I first started teaching 21 years ago. Later editions of these books have worked reasonably well over the years. If I try a new book by a new author, things don't work as well. One solution is for instructors to conform better to the textbook he/she is using. The ultimate (impractical for most) solution, of course, is to write our own textbooks. This is what it has come down to for me. Every course I teach now uses a book that I have written. I find that students read the textbook (they'd be fools if they didn't) and there is much less confusion. I also find that textbook reps no longer call on me! John Kenkel His posting elicited a number of outraged > replies but also many sympathetic responses, particularly from other > high-school teachers. > ------------------------------------------------------ > L. Peter Gold phone (814) 865-7694 > Professor of Chemistry fax (814) 865-3314 > Penn State University > 152 Davey Lab E-mail: LPG@PSU.EDU > University Park PA 16802 > ------------------------------------------------------ [ Part 17: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:41:14 -0400 From: Bert Ramsay Subject: Re: TOH - Let government do it? Alfred Lata says: > But one of > the major problems with CAI materials is that instructors find an > NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude, i.e., 'that's not the way I do it!, even > thought the stuff is pretty good.' Some instructors will adopt materials > developed other places, with reservation. and ... > He knows whereof he speaks: those of you unfamiliar with HIS MacSpectrum program, which won an EDUCOM award several years ago should see it - it was designed principally (I believe) for Analytical Chemistry. But ask Tom about its availability (OR Tom, tell us and save yourself a lot of replying!). > Another of the individual producers was Stan Smith - his stuff is still > being used by legions of students === Tell me about it. I've encountered the NIH response many times. My program has been available for some 8 years - though not used by "legions" of students, and no awards yet! In looking at the multimedia development over the past few years, I find it amazing how much duplication there is in the each teacher's creation with what is already available in other programs. Perhaps teachers have lots of time to devote to reinventing the chemistry wheel. Bert Ramsay [ Part 18: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:08:34 -0600 From: Gabriela Weaver Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Will Polik wrote: > > Is it just my impression, or is it a more general observation shared > by others, that students (even "good" students) are not reading > textbooks as much as they used to. Rather, the primary primary use > of textbooks often seems to be for finding example problems similar > to assigned homework problems. I've certainly seen some of this in physical chemistry. Like Marcy stated, my students also are taking tremendous course loads in addition to their work and family responsibilities. Those who are able to spend several contiguous hours studying one subject will rarely sit and read the textbook straight through. However, I've actually found that giving the students multiple resources covering the same material is actually *beneficial* to them. Rather than causing confusion, as others have commented, it lets my students see different explanations for the same concepts. This also helps to address the issue of students not being able to sift through material for the important concepts - as they see different presentations of the same material they beging to see the critical issues emerge repeatedly. Gabriela C. Weaver Assistant Professor University of Colorado at Denver Chemistry Department Campus Box 194 P. O. Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364 Phone: (303) 556-3201 Fax: (303) 556-4776 [ Part 19: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:18:23 -0600 From: Gabriela Weaver Subject: GCW-Response: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU I'm going to digress a little bit here in an attempt to get people's opinions on something. Here at CU-Denver we have been doing some work to assess the use of demonstrations in the chemistry classroom. We're not the first to look into this, by any means, but the literature still shows divided opinions on the merits of demonstrations. One thing that we've noticed is that students will respond differently to a demonstration depending on whether they will be tested on what they are *seeing*. When they think they are not being tested on the demos, the pens go down as soon as the beakers come out and it's time to stretch and yawn. Have any of you observed this? Do any of you who use demonstrations ask test or quiz questions specifically related to the demonstration? Gabriela C. Weaver Assistant Professor University of Colorado at Denver Chemistry Department Campus Box 194 P. O. Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364 Phone: (303) 556-3201 Fax: (303) 556-4776 [ Part 20: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:22:23 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: Re: WVV-Response- W1 - DR: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Lucky bel wrote: > Your suggestion is a good one; however, we chemistry faculty can change what > we do easier than what the social science faculty do. It is more likely that > we can make the case for the social relevancy of chemistry better than the > socialigists. Of course there is the option of interdiscuplinary courses. > > Cheers > Walt Volland The covering of chemistry in even related classes has inherent problems. A nutrition instructor I know of (who is a coach being required to teach it) recently told his class which included two of my organic students that ammino acids "break down to a single atom". On the + side, my students were at least polite enough not to correct him in fron t of the whole class. These days, most students going through higher education will learn whatever chemistry they take from a non-chemistry instructor. Clearly more needs to be done with this aspect of chemical education. In the Florida Community College system, interdisciplinary courses are hard to justify for a variety of reasons. Everything we do must transfer which means it must meet one of the existing course descriptions. There is also a 60 hr cap on associates degree requirements which leaves no room for anything extra. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 21: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:23:17 -0400 From: Rosamaria Fong Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook In the last year since I've been teaching my pre-entry chemistry course with a Web-based study guide, students come back to tell me that their chemistry textbook was "the best textbook" they've ever used. In my opinion, the textbook is good, it's clear and it explains things well. Whether it is the "best' textbook, I'll leave that up to the students to decide. Several years ago, before teaching the same course with a Web component, I used the same textbook, but I never heard this comment. So the difference is probably because in the study guide that accompanies the course, I make reference to the specific 2 or 3 pages of the textbook for each topic. In fact, I've gone as far as making references to 3 textbooks that are readily available to the students (topic by topic) in our resource center web site (http://nobel.scas.bcit.bc.ca/resource/). As learners of a new subject, it is not always easy to go through the index and find the appropriate sections of the textbook (or instruction manual) to find the answers. I would say that the tolerance is a 5 minute search before frustration sets in. Think about why newsgroup is such a good thing. A good example is when I get stuck on my Java code, sometimes all it takes is someone with more knowledge pointing me to the appropriate pages of the book. For learners of a new subject, to search through a book (which tothe learner is probably like reading Greek) is not always an easy task. Rosamaria Fong British Columbia Institute of Technology http://nobel.scas.bcit.bc.ca/ rfong@bcit.bc.ca 604-412-7438 [ Part 22: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:25:56 -0400 From: "Harry E. Pence" Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Some brief comments: Are students reading textbooks less? My impression, from talking to the book publishers, is definitely yes. Are students reading less? From talking to my students, this is another yes. Do students have less reading ability? When I was a lad (all right, no laughing in the back row), most of my fellow students could tell you how fast they read. It was a prestige thing! My current students haven't really been taught to read for content. They have trouble reading (which may explain a lot of things). Have we raised the expectations? I just looked at an old standard text, Sienko and Plane, and found it was 650 pages long. Many of the older books on my shelves could comfortably fit into most of the new textbooks, if I would cut out the center of the newer book. Add it all up - - - less ability and higher demands, it looks pretty reasonable to me. Fewer students are buying the textbook; fewer students are reading the textbook; and most students sell the textbook back as soon as the course is over, even if it is a course in their major. I still have the textbooks that I used when I was in college, (and I'm not going to tell you when that was, but only a few are in the Latin.) You may ask, "Who is to blame?" Periodically, the textbook publishers put out a shorter version of a textbook, but rarely is it popular. We faculty don't select it. Of course, we could wait until the publishers begin to publish books based on good intentions rather than the need to make a profit - - - but we'd wait a long time. One suggestion to reform the textbook industry is to require professors to purchase desk copies. If the people who selected the books had to actually pay the price for the monsters that we require our students to buy, our perspective might be a little different. ;-) Yeh! I know! Here come the flames! But when was the last time that you heard the topic of price discussed when a book was chosen. I know, the cost of a textbook is only the price of a few bottles of beer (expensive french wine, maybe?), and price is no object when we are trying to provide the best possible education. But all idealism aside, shouldn't price at least be considered? Meanwhile, aside from an occasional surprised question, like the one that started this discussion, no one in the faculty seems to be disturbed. I guess we have to ask, "Is any harm being done, and if so, what is the harm?" It appears that most of our colleagues are satisfied with the current situation. Maybe they're right. Ah well, back to grading exams, which at least my students do still have to read - - -I think. On the other hand, based on some of the answers - - - - - but that's a topic for another discussion. Cordially, Harry ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | Harry E. Pence INTERNET: PENCEHE@ONEONTA.EDU | | Professor of Chemistry PHONE: 607-436-3179 | | SUNY Oneonta OFFICE: 607-436-3193 | | Oneonta, NY 13820 FAX: 607-436-2654 | | http://snyoneab.oneonta.edu/~pencehe/ | | \\\//// | | (0 0) | |_______________OOO__(oo)__OOO____________________________| [ Part 23: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:27:49 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: Re: TOH - Let government do it? On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, to2 wrote: > RP wrote: > > >If the government (or someone else) were to provide highly specific > >software covering the curriculum of most chemistry courses, the effect > >could be enormous. The government is probably the only player with the > >resources to do something like this. > > What resources? Who in the government cares or knows much about > chemical education??? Sure, they employ lots of chemists (at FDA, > USDA, NIST, EPA, etc) but not chemical educators. NSF manages > programs and grants, but it's not a primary producer. > > The only significant workforce of computer-literate chemical > educators is WE OURSELVES. I do NOT think the government should DO it. I think the government must FUND it. It could be done far more efficiently in the private sector. The problem is that currently there is no coherent plan nor adequate $ incentives. The Rand Commission report on the software market for education (which I found online somewhere) makes it quite clear by stating that the market above age 11 is too fragmented to be attractive to the private sector. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 24: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:46:08 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook I have heard the argument of exploding textbooks before and did a little research. I too an old Sienko & Plane and a current textbook. The biggest differences I found were: Fewer pictures in S&P Fewer example problems in S&P Fewer end of chapter problems in S&P Little reference to "real world" applications of chemistry Few "remedial" topics in S&P. In chapter 1 there was a question involving density, but the text did not discuss density at all. There was no appendix describing mathematical operations, unit analysis or scientific notation. Basically the text assumed this knowledge or left it up to the instructor. I did not do a word count, but my rough guess is that the current texts actually contain less text on the topics covered in S&P than S&P. Someday, when I have the time (I figure I'll have some in 2025, or sooner if I do not find a position for next year.), or get a student slave I'll scan two texts into a computer and do a word count. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI [ Part 25: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:51:49 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Re: MJC - ROP-TOH - Let government do it? - Richard O. Pendarvis wrote: > > I do NOT think the government should DO it. I think the government > must FUND it. It could be done far more efficiently in the private > sector. The problem is that currently there is no coherent plan > nor adequate $ incentives. The Rand Commission report on the software > market for education (which I found online somewhere) makes it quite > clear by stating that the market above age 11 is too fragmented to > be attractive to the private sector. The private sector is already doing a bang up job of helping education. Just go to Olean.com and you will find a dandy multimedia slide presentation along with lecture notes giving and objective coverage of the wonders of Olestra.;) Yes, I think we should let the private sector run our schools so that our students can grow up to be good consumers who know that they can trust the corporations that have only their welfare in mind. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI [ Part 26: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:08:20 -0500 From: "Gary L. Bertrand" Subject: Re: GCW-Response: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU In response to Gabriela's question, I have observed that the value of a demonstration is directly proportional to how much it engages the students. A useful ploy that I have used is to pose a question at the start of the period in the form, "At the end of the period, I'm going to a demonstration (whatever)," with a pretty thorough descriptiom of what I'm going to do, often involving some simple apparatus. Then I ask them what they expect will happen. I get responses from students that cover most possibilities, and I fill in any others that they have missed. Then I ask how many think that each possibility will occur. My lecture then covers the material that should provide the answer. As the end of the period approaches, I know I've got a good one when they start pointing toward the apparatus to let me know. I ask them about the possibilities again, and often the answers have changed. Then I do the demo. Scores are usually very high on related questions on quizzes or exams. Sometimes I do the demo at the start, then refer to it through the lecture - particularly if I expect them to already know the principles involved, and the answers involve application of the principles. Typical Examples on Gases: Light three candles of different heights in a glass cylinder with a lid. In what order will they go out? Weigh an "empty" 2-liter soda bottle. I'm going to fill it with Helium. Will the weight go up, down, or stay the same? How much change? Rig up 2 or three balloons connected to the barrels of identical hypodermic syringes. Fill them to comparable volumes with air, helium, and CO2. Predict the order of emptying. These are trivial, sure - but they get engagement. The good students may act bored, but they still pay attention. After these classes, I have more students hanging around to chat that after any others. Gary ******************************************************** Gary L. Bertrand gbert@umr.edu (573) 341-4441 Department of Chemistry FAX (573) 341-6033 University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO 65401 http://www.umr.edu/~gbert/ "In this house, the laws of thermodynamics will be obeyed!" Homer Simpson ******************************************************** [ Part 27: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:10:14 -0400 From: Jimmy Reeves Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook -----Original Message----- From: Rosamaria Fong To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Rosiamaria Fong said: In the last year since I've been teaching my pre-entry chemistry course with a Web-based study guide, students come back to tell me that their chemistry textbook was "the best textbook" they've ever used. In my opinion, the textbook is good, it's clear and it explains things well. Whether it is the "best' textbook, I'll leave that up to the students to decide. Several years ago, before teaching the same course with a Web component, I used the same textbook, but I never heard this comment. So the difference is probably because in the study guide that accompanies the course, I make reference to the specific 2 or 3 pages of the textbook for each topic. In fact, I've gone as far as making references to 3 textbooks that are readily available to the students (topic by topic) in our resource center web site (http://nobel.scas.bcit.bc.ca/resource/). This is exactly how I think the textbook should be used, as a reference that we point to EXPLICITLY from whatever we actually use (the WWW, Powerpoint, Overheads or Chalk) to organize the course. We will all have things we like and dislike about any textbook. Currently, I assign problems from the text (which students use as a template to look for a worked out example, a bad idea taught to them over the years of asking them to come up with numbers all the time), but I don't tell them where the material I'm covering can be found, or if they should bother. Next semester I will. It seems to me that is the key to making a textbook relevant to most of my kids, AND it stresses that the role of textbooks now should be much more explicitly that of reference. The idea that a student should get a picture of our world from the textbook caught hold some time ago and created the latest "coffee table" edition of current books. Linus Pauling's text, by contrast, in its most recent edition, is in black & white and costs $20 at local book stores. We can do a better job if we view the organizing metaphor as the individual's presentation of material (including pictures, sound and video), make that easy and efficient to do and review (by providing well laid out CD-ROM and WWW based hypermedia materials that can be easily incorporated into presentations), and provide these references explicitly in that material as Ms Fong suggested. [ Part 28: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:57:38 -0500 From: David Brooks Subject: Keep Your Eyes on the Ball Not only has this been an interesting conference, but last week was a praticlularly interesting week for me in terms of snail mail. I received a copy of Chemistry 4D-Draw Pro. I've worked with this program almost since its first public offering. I loaded the current version of the program, typed in 7-chloroheptane, hit the return key, and got a stucture. I exported this to a mol file, and examined that file using BBEdit. Indeed, it was for real-- a real mol file. This means that one can go from a name to a Web-transmissible 3-D structure that is -- to some degree -- manipulable by students. For fun, I turned the program off, reloaded it, imported the 'mol' file, saw the expected structure, and asked for its name -- which was then given as 7-chloroheptane. This is empirical evidence for the changing nature of the game. Next arrived my current issue of Educational Researcher containing an article by Robert Sternberg. This piece describes a way to view ability (IQ is one of the entities that lurks under this name) as 'expertise in progress.' Interesting, especially coming from Sternberg. A 'fair use' portion of the article is posted below. Here's one sentence from the 5-item summary: "The overarching goal is to develop expertise and expert learning in every subject matter area." (Sternberg) Finally, a comment from today's ChemConf listserv: >The only significant workforce of computer-literate chemical >educators is WE OURSELVES. > >Tom O'Haver The PRINCIPAL TASK is to teach the discipline (Sternberg). Because of computers, that discipline is changing (Chem 4D-Draw). WE are the ones currently best prepared to teach that discipline (O'Haver). MUCH of what is being said in the conference looks back to yesterday or at the task at hand today. Are we really preparing today's students for the discipline of chemistry as it is likely to be practiced tomorrow? Perhaps you're now expecting to read about a magic strategy that will allow us to quickly refocus our efforts getting to be a bit 'more on task.' Sorry. No special call to arms from this quarter. At this point in time, all of the experiments I've been connected with have turned up lackluster results. The process of the intellectual transition is not a painless one, at least so far as we have discovered. Dave Brooks ________________ from Educational Researcher, 11-20, 1998 27(3) by Robert J. Sternberg Title: Abilities Are Forms of Developing Expertise Section Heading: "Implications for Education and Classroom Practice" "The model of abilities as a form of developing expertise has a number of immediate implications for education, in general, and classroom practice, in particular. "First, teachers and all who use ability and achievement tests should stop viewing them as measuring two distinct constructs. Rather, there is no clear differentiation between the two constructs. "Second, tests of any kind tell us achieved levels of developing expertise. No test of abilities or anything else can specify the asymptote a student can achieve. "Third, different kinds of assessments-multiple-choice, short-answer, performance-based, portfolio-complement each other in assessing multiple aspects of developing expertise. There is no one right kind of assessment. "Fourth, instruction should be geared not just toward imparting a knowledge base, but toward developing reflective analytical, creative, and practical thinking with a knowledge base. Students learn better when they think to learn, even when their learning is assessed with straightforward multiple-choice memory assessments (Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, in press). They also learn better when teaching takes into account their diverse styles of learning and thinking, the same diverse styles shown by experts (Sternberg, 1997b). "Finally, some theories of cognitive development (e.g., Piaget, 1972) view such development in a relatively abstract way that then needs to be translated into educational practice. The translation is often less than clear. The theory of abilities as developing expertise has an advantage in its direct application to classroom strategies and goals. The overarching goal is to develop expertise and expert learning in every subject matter area." David W. Brooks dbrooks@unlinfo.unl.edu 118 Henzlik-UNL (402)472-2018 Lincoln, NE 68588-0355 FAX (402)472-8317 http://www.cci.unl.edu [ Part 29: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:33:00 +0100 From: Francisco Javier Arnaiz Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook > It is simply a fact of life that: (a) >reading the textbook takes time, (b) students have a limited amount of time, >so (c) they read only what has to be read. The argument could be made that >students have less time today for study then they did 30 years ago, since >there is much more freedom (less discipline) on campus, resulting in >activities that interfere with study I also like simple arguments. Assuming that the main goal of students is to pass the course obtaining the best grade with the minimum effort they will read textbooks when they consider it is necessary, esentially by direct (or indirect) teacher's exigence. Then we can consider further complementary reasons, mainly: Considerable time is consumed (going to the biblio, filling a sheat, waiting,..) in reading, sometimes for 'nothing' (to conclude that reading another textbook is required). -- Francisco J. Arnaiz Lab. de Quimica Inorganica Universidad de Burgos 09001 Burgos (Spain) Tel. +34-47-258823 Fax: +34-47-258831 mailto:farnaiz@ubu.es [ Part 30: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:36:58 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Dr. Pence recently commented: "But all idealism aside, shouldn't price at least be considered?" Price is the most influential criterion for my deciding which text to use. Why the most influential? First, to me there is not much difference in the current chemistry texts out there. The positives and negatives of each text cancel out to give no net discrimination as to one text being SIGNIFICANTLY better than another. For the most part the current texts are categorically the same and I may add have too many pages. Second, the southwestern region of AZ is highly rural and economically depressed. I see no need for my students, the majority of whom come from lower middle class economic environments, to dish out 80$ for a chemistry text that is 1200 pages long when in reality, at best, we will cover ~500 pages. I flat out tell publishing reps that their text is too $$$ for my students. They usually counter with the "customizing a text" option but this is only economically feasible to them if the class size approaches 200 students or thereabouts. Gen chem at AWC maximizes out at 70 students...fall semester. I would suspect that most of the cost in printing is attributable to the use of 5 to 6 colors. I seriously doubt that the increase in making the text visually appealing increases the overall probability of students desire to read the text or increases what they get out of it when they do read it. It's not necessary to have 24 chapters and 1200 pages of text for a FRESHMEN general chem course. No doubt though texts of this size provide a lot of different options than a text with fewer chapters and pages (assuming the smaller text keeps each chapter as a discrete topic as in the larger texts). 'Course this then gets to the sticky question: What material should be removed or minimized? If relevancy is the driving force of the future in chemical education, is it really necessary to spend time on bond hybridization and other more esoteric, abstract concepts (at least from the perception of a freshman student 18-22 years of age)? Scott Donnelly Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "You can't rise up to low expectations." -Author Unknown [ Part 31: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:44:06 -0500 From: Doris Kimbrough Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook I have been reflecting on this discussion all morning, particularly in light of the fact that we are currently thinking about changing texts in general chemistry. I have an embarassing confession to make: *I* never read my chemistry textbook, or any science textbook--still don't really. I *used* my textbook a great deal, but more as a reference manual, source for problems, and backup or alternative explanation for concepts I had trouble getting from lecture. I think this comment does hit close to home: >A bit closer to home, I might ask how many of us read instruction manuals >before we use new software and hardware. Instead, we use the instruction >manuals as references when we run into problems. I read my history, English, philosophy, and French textbooks (along with all the other required reading), but I didn't really "read" my science texts. I don't know why, perhaps because I didn't really learn science that way. I preferred to learn it through lecture and lab as well as working problems. Often the only parts I *did* read through from start to finish were the boxes containing unusual examples, digressions, and attempts to make chemistry (or physics, biology, etc.) relevant. I too have noticed that many of my students often don't read the book, but it never really bothered me, since I never did either. And since I lecture simultaneously from a number of books, I am often caught unawares when a student states, "In the book, he says....how does that relate to what you are saying here?" I have to scramble around to find the book that the students are actually using (and read it!) to answer the question. In my distance learning class, the students can (and do) use any general chemistry book they want. I was worried that this would precipitate some confusion, but it hasn't really. They compare books, occasionally photocopying for each other sections that are particularly useful in one book or another. The general content is pretty uniform across the market. It does on occasion produce some interesting discussion as the numbers in the tables (Ksp's for example) often differ by one or more orders of magnitude from book to book. Students sometimes get annoyed that we (as a discipline) don't have things ironed out a little better, but fostering the idea that we are still learning things and that just because it's "in the book" doesn't mean it's necessarily true is probably not a bad thing. Doris Doris R. Kimbrough Chemistry Department Box 194 University of Colorado at Denver P.O. Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364 dkimbrough@castle.cudenver.edu [ Part 32: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:49:39 -0500 From: Marcy Towns <00mhtowns@BSU.EDU> Subject: Re: GCW-Response: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU Two thoughts immediately came to mind. Willy Hunter gave a presentation two weeks ago at the NARST meeting and talked about 'Chemical Demonstration" sheets which were available on the Chemistry 115 website at Purdue. During the course of his research he found that in courses where professors talked about using the sheets the students went and got them off the web and filled them out during the lecture in which the demo took place. Profs that didn't talk about the sheets had students that did not use them. I am sure that the sheets can be found on the Chem 115 website. Or, you could call Willy or email him to ask about them. Second, I know that Craig Bowen (U. of Southern Miss) and Amy Phelps (U. of N. Iowa) has done research on Demonstration-based testing. They have published their work--see the Journal of Chemical Education V. 74, p. 715-719. Craig also presented his work at BCCE in Clemson. Craig and Amy's article is a nice place to start if people are interested in reading about integrating demonstrations into their assessment practices. Marcy. Marcy Towns Assistant Professor of Chemistry Ball State University Cooper Hall Muncie, IN 47306 765-285-8075 765-285-2351 (FAX) [ Part 33: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:53:57 -0500 From: Marcy Towns <00mhtowns@BSU.EDU> Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Harry and Scott wrote, >Dr. Pence recently commented: "But all idealism aside, shouldn't price at >least be considered?" > >Price is the most influential criterion for my deciding which text to use. Just by way of comment, price was considered when we chose a prep chem book. We wanted the money to be well spent and to go far. One of the interesting things by way of discussion was that faculty were not in favor of a paperback book over a hard back. The reason--the students could not sell it back for as much money. Marcy. Marcy Towns Assistant Professor of Chemistry Ball State University Cooper Hall Muncie, IN 47306 765-285-8075 765-285-2351 (FAX) [ Part 34: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:07:46 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: WV- RE: GCW-Response: SOME > ---------- > From: Marcy Towns > Reply To: Conferences on Chemistry Research and Education > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 10:49 AM > To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: GCW-Response: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU > > Gabriela wrote: > > > > > >I'm going to digress a little bit here in an attempt to get people's > opinions > snipsnipWhen they think they are not being tested > >on the demos, the pens go down as soon as the beakers come out and > it's time > >to stretch and yawn. > > > >Have any of you observed this? Do any of you who use demonstrations > ask test > >or quiz questions specifically related to the demonstration? > > > Yes, I've consistently observed students shifting attitudes when the demonstrations are done. I've tried to shift to include demos that are interactive. I want the students assimilating what is happening not to watch. I also want them to do more than watch and take notes. They should make observations during the demo and eventually be able to relate what was seen to the discussion topics. I've found that quiz questions about the demos encourage better quality interest. > Dr. Walt Volland > Department of Chemistry > Bellevue Community College > Bellevue WA 98007 > 425-641-2467 > wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu > > > [ Part 35: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:11:26 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: WV-RE: Students Not Reading I've tried open book exams and quizes. Students put in a great deal of effort. They not only read their own book they also read other books as well. The results have been very positive. Cheers [ Part 36: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:15:11 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Did the price of the paper back exceed the depreciation in the value of the hard bound book? We have often found that the depreciation ws more than the paperback price. Selecting a hard bound text over a paper back may be "Penney wise and pound foolish". Regards [ Part 37: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:28:30 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Re: MJC -Students Not Reading Textbook Walter Volland wrote: > > Did the price of the paper back exceed the depreciation in the value of > the hard bound book? We have often found that the depreciation ws more > than the paperback price. Selecting a hard bound text over a paper back > may be "Penney wise and pound foolish". > Regards I believe this is true in many cases. It also helps the students' cash flows to not have to come up with $80 - $100 at the beginning of the semester. If they get less back some of them might even think of keeping the book to use as a reference for future classes. If fewer students sell back their textbooks, then there will be fewer used books on the market and maybe the publishers will not be forced to bring out new editions every few weeks. This will also help to keep the price of textbooks down. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI [ Part 38: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:17:43 -0500 From: Joseph Bellina Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Perhaps someone mentioned this, but if not, I assign readings in my class and then award extra credit for reasonable outlines of the material. It seems to work. cheers [ Part 39: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:50:52 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Enter your message below. Press CTRL/Z when complete, or CTRL/C to quit: One of the things that I found most interesting in the textbook arena, is that over a period of years the students always reported that last year's textbook was better than this year's text - and it didn't matter what year it was or what text we used either year. Second source of information, building upon a partial understanding? (As an experiment we could have them buy two texts!! One summer we were going to let them choose one of three, their own choice! with the option to read or trade with another student [didn't do it, though].) Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu [ Part 40: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:03:40 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: WV-RE: Students Not I've had success by giving an extra credit reward for textbook errors. The student gets extra credit for finding an error, expalining the nature of the error, and writing up the correction. The amount of extra credit is small but enough of an incentive to get more text reading. I've also had students write summaries for the current assigned chapter. These summaries had to include things like the main point of the chapter, the connections between the current chapter and previous ones, examples of applications of the chapter content, any useful relationships, etc. [ Part 41: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:39:53 -0500 From: John V Kenkel Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Alfred Lata wrote: > > Enter your message below. Press CTRL/Z when complete, or CTRL/C to quit: > One of the things that I found most interesting in the textbook arena, is > that over a period of years the students always reported that last year's > textbook was better than this year's text - and it didn't matter what year > it was or what text we used either year. Curious comment! Maybe you are joking. Seems to me the students must hate this year's text so much that they think last year's is bound to be better. Or are you talking about students who had first semester one year and second semester the next year? Or is it students who failed one year and are taking it again the next? Or is it students who have had their friends who took the course last year assess this year's book. Or are they hating this year's book so much that they took it upon themselves to find last year's book and assess it too. (Wow, they read two chemistry textbooks!) Or maybe it's the TA's who taught both years assessing both books. Otherwise, it doesn't seem likely that a given student in a given year would have any idea what last year's text was like. Another comment below...... Second source of information, > building upon a partial understanding? > (As an experiment we could have them buy two texts!! One summer we were > going to let them choose one of three, their own choice! with the option to > read or trade with another student [didn't do it, though].) This remark would seem to support the idea that instructors don't conform sufficiently to the book they are currently using (and thus frustrate and confuse students). Otherwise, such an experiment would not even be considered. Or are you still being facetious? (Press CNTRL DEL and I won't speak again.) > > Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 > lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu [ Part 42: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:48:01 -0700 From: Jim Diamond Subject: Re: ROP-Discussion of Selected Topics-TDC On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:07:26 -0400 Tim Champion wrote: > How about a Journal of Science Ed Software (distributed as both print and > software) where: > -a standard user interface is strongly encouraged (HTML / Java as an > authoring language? similar interface or standard categories for > interfaces) (lots more) >... Essentially, this is a reviewed shareware > distribution site. Tim, I think that is a great idea. I think you're onto something here. Thanks! Jim Diamond, chair Chemistry Department McMinnville, OR 97128 jimd@linfield.edu Linfield College (503)-434-2471 [ Part 43: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:50:24 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0 From: "Lanzafame, Frank" Subject: Re: MJC -Students Not Reading Textbook >Walter Volland wrote: >> Did the price of the paper back exceed the depreciation in the value of >> the hard bound book? We have often found that the depreciation ws more >> than the paperback price. Selecting a hard bound text over a paper back >> may be "Penney wise and pound foolish". >I believe this is true in many cases. It also helps the students' cash >flows to not have to come up with $80 - $100 at the beginning of the >semester. Paperbacks seem to be in the publisher's best interest. We've used Peters & Kowerski "Chemical Principles" by Saunders. They are so intent on destroying the aftermarket that they ONLY publish the paper edition, AND have made it loose leaf to insure its destruction. I've like and used that text for a number of years, but I'm not sure I'll continue with it. As an added "feature", they've done away with sequential page numbers so "you can teach in whatever order you wish". A case of trying to be all things to all people. Chapters have letters, but they are NOT in alphabetical order. If anyone has any favorable reaction to using this text, I'd be interested in hearing it. >If they get less back some of them might even think of keeping the book >to use as a reference for future classes. If fewer students sell back >their textbooks, then there will be fewer used books on the market and >maybe the publishers will not be forced to bring out new editions every >few weeks. This will also help to keep the price of textbooks down. >Michael Chejlava I'm afraid I'm a bit more skeptical than Michael. I'm not sure they will be tempted NOT to reap still more profits. Saunders is doing its best to see that there is NO used book market, in which case there's no need to worry about changing editions. /\~~~/\ > > Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry > ^ ^ > Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. > (_O_) > Rochester, NY 14623 716-292-2396 > U > Internet: flanzafame@monroecc.edu [ Part 44: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:59:33 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Dear Colleagues, The text book preference issue isn't as clear with students here at BCC. Many attack their texts and razor cut them so they don't have to carry the 1200 page monster around. Apparently the $$$ isn't an issue. We have a growing number of students who use both the text and the CR-ROM. They like the animations, quick time movies, and interactivity. They like the way the media complements the hard copy text. The majority of BCC chemistry students have computers at home that have CD-ROM drives. I find there is a distribution of text readers and non text readers. The majority are good about reading. They occassionally have trouble establishing priorities. Perhaps I have older students, but even the "running start" high school students who attend college classes are consistently using their text. (I can only speak about my students.) I try to add enrichment material in lecture, fill in gaps in the text presentation, go over learning tips, do model problem analysis and show problem solving short cuts and tricks in class. I avoid giving lectures that are an oral recounting of the text. We have a busy time in lecture and even do some group work on a regular basis. I'm distributing exercise sheets for upcoming lecture sessions. These exercises are matched to the core ideas of the upcoming lecture. Students are supposed to read the text before class and attempt to answer the exercises. The class discussion focuses on the exercises that were troublesome. Dr. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 Luckbel@aol.com wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu [ Part 45: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:08:22 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WV-Re: farnaiz -Re: Students Not Read IMHO I've found that reading speeds and comprehension increase the more someone reads. If students avoid reading when they are in the education stream what will happen when they are left to their own devices? They might nevr touch a book. Our populations will become less and less literate and more and more media dependent. The reading needs to be a component of the study process. we may need to help the students focus on what we think is pertinent. Regards, Walt Dr. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 46: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:39:04 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Responding to jvkenkel@sccm.cc.ne.us 's response to my (Alfred Lata)'s comments on students liking last year's text better: No facetiousness!! All true. A new and different presentation of material built upon their semi-understanding, and gave them a different insight. They shared the text with a student who had taken the course the previous year (and had NOT sold it back!!). Heavens, we use lecture to augment the text, the text to augment the lecture, CD-ROMS and demonstrations to augment all the other stuff! Why not use one text to augment another. It's understanding we're after: do we care what legitimate means they use to gain understanding? Do you have any computer books to help explain what your manuals do not? Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu [ Part 47: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:46:09 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: O'Haver's Chemical Workforce Pardon my oversight, but in my short list of O'Haver's Chemical Workforce (O'Haver & Smith) I should have included a veteran laborer (veteran = working many years) who still is in the vineyard of generating computer materials: namely Steve Lower. Please examine his work: it has be refined by time and ability. Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu [ Part 48: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:57:09 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WV-Multiple texts- Re: Students Not Good for you, The thought that students should make use of multiple sources is refreshing. My more dedicated students do that kind of thing with my blessing. The text book adopted for a class should be a guide and help students identify what is easy to understand and what is not. The tougher topics can be researched by looking at other print sources, CD-ROMs, talking with one another and talking with the instructor. Love your comments. Regards, Walt Dr. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 49: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:19:42 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Response to GCW: SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU Earlier Gabriela Weaver wrote "... in an attempt to get people's opinions on something. [We] Here at CU-Denver have been doing some work to assess the use of demonstrations in the chemistry classroom. We're not the first to look into this, by any means, but the literature still shows divided opinions on the merits of demonstrations." It's not surprising that the literature is divided (I assume 50-50 or close to it) as to the merits of classroom demonstrations because "assessing" such activities is akin to conducting a Bernoulli Trial. Students either like it or don't like it (or perceive they will or will not be tested on it), the probability of success (arbitrarily chosen by the experimenter as to what constitutes success or failure) is the same for every classroom demo, and each classroom demo is independent of any other (no influence on later outcomes). Dr. Weaver asks: "Do any of you who use demonstrations ask test or quiz questions specifically related to the demonstration?" I do and I start no later than the second week (to adjust for the add/drop time period). I do some demo and ask students to put on paper an explanation for what happened. It's graded and returned. The next demo may or may not (Bernoulli again) be graded. So on and so forth throughout the semester. I have not observed that my students "doze" off during my demos even during the boring ones that I do. I attribute their attentiveness during demos to my shooting off model rocket motors in class, bubbling natural gas through a soap solution and then igniting the gas, turning off the lights for chemiluminescence reactions, setting off a thermite reaction, and chunking a gummy bear into a molten solution of potassium chloride and oxygen gas (from decomposing potassium chlorate). They never know when the next big boom is to come and they don't want to miss it. At the end of the semester I ask students what they liked best about the class. The most common response: the demos. As for the data and literature...I'd do demos even if the data indicated demos were ineffective. Scott Donnelly Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "You can't rise up to low expectations." -Author Unknown [ Part 50: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:42:59 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WVV-mchejlava - Re: Students Not Dear Colleagues, We all know there has been a tremendous culture change since 1958-60 when S&P was the text of choice. The reading level of students has changed. The attention span of the typical citizen down to 5-15 minute chunks or sound byte sized segments. People have changed their attitudes since the days of S&P. The black box component method of electronic design has replaced tubes that could be checked at super market tube testers. Logical thinking was more frequently used by the public at large. Technology was simple and people needed to make up for that simplicity. Cause and effect were very visible. Cashiers still made change without the aid of a computerized cash register. Reality and fantasy were more distinctly separated. The mechanical experience of today's students is not what it was in the days of S&P. People don't even change their own oil today. I've run afoul of using analogies that relate to simple cooking because microwave dinners and fast food dominate food preparation. Today general chemistry is sweeping up a broader segment of the public. High school attrition kept many people out of college. The percentage of college age students in college today is much greater than it was 40 years ago. The old expectations of failure have been replaced by expectations of an "A" and medical school. There is no going back to the way things were. Comparing S&P with the present generation of texts may be an interesting exercise, but I don't think it recognizes the problems associated with a changed culture. I liked S&P. I liked the sequence of topics, I wonder if it could have a revival. It would probably be updated to look like the other titles on the publishing market. Regards, Dr. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 51: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:19:28 -0600 From: John Mackin Subject: HS Students Not Reading Textbook >From a high school teachers perspective.... This year, I spent some time teaching my students how to effectively read a textbook. I developed a Chapter Preview for them to learn the steps in previewing a chapter. For the first 3 chapters, I wrote a graphical reading guide keyed to the text with built-in reviews and sample problems. I then tested their reading comprehension and textbook skills in class with good results. Based on these positive results, I had the students write reading notes for chapters 4-7 as they read. Points were attached to each of these activities; most students completed them. Then, starting with chapter 8, I made notetaking optional - students were encouraged to do what they needed to extract the information from the text; they were expected to read. To my surprise and dismay, most stopped reading. It seemed that what motivated them to read was the points attached to the activities. So much for all the training. Students were generally less prepared for class and relied on me to provide the information. I stressed that in college reading is expected. Next year, my students will be required to do reading notes for all chapters. At least this way, most will read. It is sad that points drive learning more than love of learning. Perhaps that comes with age and maturity. John Mackin Traditional Chemistry Teacher Kirkwood High School Kirkwood, MO johniii@stlnet.com ****************************************************************************** [ Part 52: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:11:53 -0700 From: "K.R.Fountain" Subject: Re: HS Students Not Reading Textbook In college "points" is everything. They are playing a big pinball game. Score as much as possible, and don't tilt the mavhine by P-ing off the prof. Makes me tear my hair out too. (Such as it is.) I use formative material to make them read the text in groups. Sometimes it really works, then "Points" makes it ugly self felt. Then I take to assignments in class to groups. They read a section of text, discuss it for 10 min. then take a quiz consisting of a focus question, over the material they have just read. This counts for points, but for each 3 points above 70 the class averages over them semester I drop the grade scale 1 point. This year A= 87.5%. This really works, because the quizzes and projects are on a surprise basis, so they read the text in groups, and practice before class because it somewhat controls their fate. Sincerely, Ken Fountain [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:46:43 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WVV-Re: HS Students Not Reading Textbook Students are very practical. They do what they think is needed for their immediate success. Unfortunately the average student will be concerned about the grade more than the content. This shouldn't be any surprise. College students sometimes are better about reading when they are paying their own money for fees and books. They want to get what they paid for. Our older students are typically more responsible. Cheers Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:20:59 -0400 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: ROP Re:Students Not Reading Textbook Walt is right students are very practical and focused in certain respects. They will read, study, or do only what they think will make a difference in their grade. In short, assesment defines whether or not they use their textbook or anything else. Such a simple ploy as putting a single problem or question from the book on even one test can be helpful. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:15:00 EDT From: to2 Subject: Re: WV-Re: farnaiz -Re: Students Not Read Of course students chase "points" more than learning, knowledge, and understanding. The consequences of failing to get the points is immediate. The consequences of failing to understand may never be felt. How much of what we teach is REALLY used by our students, except to get more points in the next course? How else can you explain why so many Harvard graduates can't explain the origin of the seasons (c.f. the Private Universe tapes). You can survive in the world without understanding much of it. When they need it for survival, they'll learn it. A rewarding aspect of working with students in a research setting, outside of the structure of a course, is that they typically want to learn things for their own purposes. There are no "points" and "exams" - just problems whose solutions are sought but not known previously be anyone. I have seen research students devour specialized monographs, difficult articles from the primary literature, and even the ocasional textbook - all in the search for something that will work. Tom -------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation The University of Maryland at College Park to2@umail.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:46:12 -0500 From: "Bondeson, Steve" Subject: SRB Re: Students Not Reading Textbook I would like to suggest an alternate approach to reading the textbook, viz., not having a book at all. Here at UWSP we have been experimenting with what we call the Data Driven Classroom in which students argue from data (either primary data or idealized data sets) to the principles. (This is an extension of the lab driven course idea.) This project is funded by the FIPSE program of the Dept. of Education and its aims are to force students to develop models of how nature behaves based on what has been observed. Rather than reading the conclusions that have been nicely packaged in the pages of an authoritative textbook, they have to deal with messy data, observe the trends, and deduce the conclusions. They develop ownership of the ideas this way and begin to understand the science at a different level. In some ways, this approach can exploit the natural inclinations for students to not read the book: the most important material for them is now the data. So, a CRC handbook (or the NIST Chemistry WebBook) becomes their primary "textbook". We are in the first semester of implementing this project in the class room and we have learned much about what works and what doesn't work (mostly the latter!) It is certainly an alternative to having students rely on the results of somebody else's reasoning. Professor Stephen R. Bondeson (715) 346-3714 (Voice) Department of Chemistry (715) 346-2640 (FAX) University of Wisconsin-SP sbondeso@uwsp.edu Stevens Point, WI 54481 [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:47:31 -0500 From: John V Kenkel Subject: Re: Students Not Reading Textbook There are opposite philosophies for increasing student understanding at work here. One says increase student understanding by making all possible resources available to the student at all times and to encourage their use. The other says increase student understanding by focusing on a single approach provided by a single textbook and support material that uses that same approach. As you can probably tell from the prior discussion, my philosophy is the latter. I am particularly sensitive to students who get frustrated reading a textbook that comes at a topic from a very different different perspective than that of the teacher. Such frustration results in poor understanding, continued perception that chemistry is a abstract, difficult field, and a negative opinion of the teacher. I can do without all of those feelings. I don't think the computer book analogy applies here. John Kenkel Southeast Community College Lincoln, Nebraska [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:54:07 -0600 From: gary mort Subject: Re: ROP Re:Students Not Reading Textbook Once, in a fit of despair and frustration, I wrote an entire exam out of the book, same problems word for word, simple definites and so on. Class bombed, came in whining about how impossible it was to pass my tests etc. I didn't say anything. I just passed out a version on the test with the text references to the questions. I heard nearly no grumbling after that. gm [ Part 8: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:03:51 -0400 From: Bill Vining Subject: Chasing points I've never been bothered when my students only worry about points. I look at it this way: points are how we tell student what is and what is not important. No points = my saying "you have better ways to spend your time." Students have been immersed in the idea that we value certain things and not other things, and that points are the means of communication. We even do it in how we distribute points within a single exam. I don't feel comfortable looking down on my students (I'm not implying that anyone here is stating that, but there are certainly many who do) because they pay attention to what we value. The students that lose my respect are not those who only do the bare minimum for an A, but those who only really care to get a C. And even with those, I give them a wide berth of benefit of the doubt. They might well need to spend more time getting an A in a course that is more important to them. Also, a word of caution about our comparing today's students with those of yesteryear: we became college faculty and are not a representative of those students of yesteryear. bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Vining Associate Professor of Chemical Education and Director of General Chemistry Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 413-545-2352 Fax: 413-545-5410 http://soulcatcher.chem.umass.edu [ Part 9: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:14:20 -0400 From: Bill Vining Subject: Re: SRB Re: Students Not Reading Textbook Stephen R. Bondeson wrote: >I would like to suggest an alternate approach to reading the textbook, viz., >not having a book at all. Here at UWSP we have been experimenting with what >we call the Data Driven Classroom in which students argue from data (either >primary data or idealized data sets) to the principles. (This is an >extension of the lab driven course idea.) This project is funded by the >FIPSE program of the Dept. of Education and its aims are to force students >to develop models of how nature behaves based on what has been observed. >Rather than reading the conclusions that have been nicely packaged in the >pages of an authoritative textbook, they have to deal with messy data, >observe the trends, and deduce the conclusions. They develop ownership of >the ideas this way and begin to understand the science at a different level. > We have been doing a very similar thing for about 6 years now using a set of computer simulations that we have written (Note: self serving comment: Chemland, which you can download at our website). We use the simulations in class (students are at computers) to have students generate their own understanding of chemical concepts. Some of these are like experiments but many are more "theoretical," like a periodic table they use to explore electronic structure. We have found, though, that although the students very much like learning this way, and although I love teaching this way, they still need a book as reference. In fact, it is probably more important because running a class that way results in notes that are less organized. Bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Vining Associate Professor of Chemical Education and Director of General Chemistry Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 413-545-2352 Fax: 413-545-5410 http://soulcatcher.chem.umass.edu [ Part 10: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:25:07 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WV-Re: -BV- Chasing points I agree that simple descriptions of todays student population and yesterdays cannot be accurate. I do firmly believe that our students have different interests and attitudes from the ones from the period when S&P was used in 1958. We are communicating with students differently than before. Also, I think our students have high expectations for us. I also agree with the idea that generally students place value on the things we give point value. That is the "game" . Their success is measured by the points. I have a twist on the issue of students reading the text. How many of us have read page by page the text we ask our students to use? Cheers Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 [ Part 11: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:40:29 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Re: WVV-Re: HS Students Not Reading Textbook Walt Volland wrote: > > Students are very practical. They do what they think is needed for their > immediate success. Unfortunately the average student will be concerned about > the grade more than the content. Unfortunately this short term view pervades our society. The evolutionary psychologists would attribute this to our hunter gatherer ancestors, who like wild animals only spent 1-2 hours/day working to get their food and then rested . They really had the free time that we now strive for. This attitude worked well when there were only a few million (or less) people spread over the globe and food was plentiful. However, in a world with more than 5 billion people, just getting by is not going to work for very long. Unfortunately I am afraid that all of the government and private sector initiatives and curriculum and teaching method changes are going to have little effect until the majority of the population really values education, and not just getting credits or degrees. The current world desperately needs a large number of people who are willing to do more than the minimum to get by. One sad fact is the low participacion in this conference. A few years back I in an ACS publication it said that there were 22,000 post-secondary chemistry faculty in the US alone. I would guess that there is at leaast an order of magnitude more secondary chemistry teachers in the US. This means that in the world there are probably in excess of 1 million people involved in teaching chemistry, yet there are fewer than 800 participating in this conference. We have to keep trying, but we have a big job ahead of us. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI [ Part 12: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:04:15 -0400 From: Leon Combs Chemistry Subject: Re: SRB Re: Students Not Reading Textbook This approach certainly has some merit. However I worry that people may go through this and not know how to learn from what has been done. It is very important to be able to learn from the conclusions made by others and to know that there is a truth about nature that does not depend upon the students' observations. It is great for me to read the papers of Peter Debye and others and to apply their logic and the truths that they discovered to problems that I face. I think that a course such as the one proposed is beneficial, but not for a whole course. People still need to be able to read, memorize, learn, and then apply which can be done in required student research for majors. For non-science majors I think that critical thinking skills can be improved by such a course as this, but I would still argue for content as well. The trendy "process, not content" is not adequate. We need process and content. It is obvious from all of the comments generated this week, that we in education have some very serious problems to try to solve. Has anybody seen the latest literacy statistics for the U.S.? Really scary. Leon Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Tel: 770-423-6159 Professor and Chair FAX: 770-423-6744 Department of Chemistry lcombs@ksumail.kennesaw.edu Kennesaw State University http://science.kennesaw.edu/~lcombs 1000 Chastain Road CARPE DIEM ---- CORUM DEO Kennesaw, GA 30144 [ Part 13: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:37:59 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: W1 - DR: Goals and Reading the Textbook W1 - DR: Goals and Reading the Textbook - A Personal Perspective Walt Volland (4-24 - 13:51, 4-29 - 04:39) has mentioned and discussed goals for chemical education. A number of participants have discussed reading or not reading the textbook. I believe there are certain important GOALS (or OBJECTIVES) which an INTRODUCTORY CHEMISTRY COURSE should attempt to achieve. These are STUDENTS should learn: 1. CHEMISTRY 2. Something about SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS and TECHNOLOGY generally - the scientific method, the scientific perspective and the philosophy of science 3. The application of chemistry (science, mathematics and technology) to society and its problems 4. The role of chemistry (science, mathematics and technology) in decision making 5. Laboratory experiments, techniques and modern instruments - the analysis and interpretation of experimental data 6. Better intercommunication skills - READING and LISTENING, WRITING and SPEAKING 7. Studying and working INDEPENDENTLY and COLLABORATIVELY. 8. Becoming familiar with and using the new technologies - computers, applications software, multimedia, the Internet, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Learning is a lifelong process and it seems to me that the most important task for schools and colleges is to prepare students for lifelong learning. READING is an essential part of this process. I believe that the TEXTBOOK is a very important part of an INTRODUCTORY CHEMISTRY course. Any teacher who by word or action demeans the textbook or implies that students don't really need to read the textbook is doing a disservice to the education process. I do not agree with teachers who tell their students that "All you have to know is what I tell you in class and what is in the homework assignments and laboratory experiments". Reading the textbook should be an essential part of the course. Lectures, multimedia materials and recitations should primarily be designed to assist the student in understanding and appreciating the textbook. They should not be a substitute for reading. Students should be tested on some material which is in the textbook and not covered in lecture or recitation. I believe that the ultimate objective of a chemistry course is not just to have students do well in examinations or learn chemistry. Donald Rosenthal Department of Chemistry Clarkson University Potsdam NY 13699-5810 ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU [ Part 14: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:43:55 -0500 From: "Dr. David Ritter" Subject: Re: WV-Re: -BV- Chasing points Last week I came across an interesting article in the newspaper. It pointed out that there has not been a sub-four minute mile running time by a high school student in over thirty years. (In spite of today's high tech shoes and tracks) When they looked for a reason, they find that even the best of the best runners today are simply unwilling to train as much as the high school students of the early-to-mid 60s. It seems to me that interesting parallels exist to these discussions. DR David Ritter Department of Chemistry Southeast Missouri State University dritter@semovm.semo.edu [ Part 15: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:08:06 +0100 From: Francisco Javier Arnaiz Subject: Re: WV-Re: farnaiz -Re: Students Not Read More on reading textbooks, with apologies because of my rudimentary english. A reflection and a suggestion, also rudimentaries: 1.- We are living times of accelerated change. 2.- It is inappropriate attempting to compare today students with 20 years ago students 3.- Multi/electronic/media is and will be dominant. 4.- We all are convinced that 'reading' is very important to compare approachs, etc.... 5.- We decide that students should read more. 6.- The more clear way (to me of course) to get this objective is: 7.- A group of expertise in chemistry select the main topics and secondary/colateral connected topics. 8.- They create a 'textbook' developing this topics from the various perspectives, including questions, problems,... A texbook about 10-20000 pages is very probably sufficient for a general chemistry course. 9.- This texbook is of course a disk, appropriately prepared to facilitate students entries and connections to each particular topic, which is sold at say $50. 10.- Sorry if this is only a old discarded impracticable idea, but I am writing this in the conviction that in this way students would read more in the next future. -- Francisco J. Arnaiz Lab. de Quimica Inorganica Universidad de Burgos 09001 Burgos (Spain) Tel. +34-47-258823 Fax: +34-47-258831 mailto:farnaiz@ubu.es [ Part 16: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:28:13 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: Re: WV-Re: farnaiz -Re: Students Not Read Generally I agree with your views on reading and believe that the newer materials should be used when they do something the previous technology didn't do. I believe we can get our students to read books and other sources if we as faculty make it clear that the student's grade will depend on the reading. If they think we don't value the reading material then students won't read. Some test questions must address content found only in the reading. The rapid changes in technology should not keep us from using appropriate old technologies. Walt [ Part 17: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:39:41 CST From: "James A. Carroll" Subject: JC Re: Combs on SRB@UWSP Data Driven Class The comments of Leon Combs, for example, "I worry that people may go through this and not know how to learn from what has been done. It is very important to be able to learn from the conclusions made by others and to know that there is a truth about nature that does not depend upon the students' observations. " prompted me to draft the following response to the week's question, "What can we do to better meet the needs of our students?" 1) Talk to our graduates and active individuals in our communities so that we remain aware and sensitive to the demands to be placed on our students after graduation. In other words, keep a broad and long-term perspective when we mention "the needs of our students," rather than limiting our considerations to "what do my students need to pass this semester course." This is a difficult, reward-free task, as I found when I tried to survey stakeholders outside the chemistry department on their preferences for skills which students should have at the end of a general chemistry laboratory sequence. To meet the needs of our students. 2) Set, communicate, and uphold standards consistent with the long-range needs of students. As others have indicated, the concrete chemical content expected by those entities which require chemistry of their students is lower than almost any of us would concede. Nobody else cares if we leave out some of our time-honored topics. Paradoxically, while selection of chemical content can be highly variable, it is critical that there be a significant quantity and variety of it: qualitative and quantitative, data and models. The variety is needed to give students the opportunity to deal with different sorts of input (information) as they develop problem solving and communication skills. The skills are really what chemistry courses develop that make the courses useful to other programs. 3) Because individuals learn differently, we meet the needs of a larger fraction of our students if we use at least one example of a variety of media and methods: text, displays, demonstrations; lectures and computer study aids with audio component; laboratories, group work and student-moderated study sessions. It seems to me there is more potential in discussing where a given medium is more useful than current approaches. The tendency is to sell the technology indiscriminately as the way of the future, or to react to such claims. I expect next week to help a lot to address this shortcoming. To meet the needs of our students. 4) Model appropriate behavior. The availability of a new medium or method is insufficient. Its use must be demonstrated, and the considerations of its use discussed explicitely. High school teachers do a much better job with this than university faculty. I believe it is unrealistic to expect high school teachers to develop in their students the skill of independently becoming expert in a new medium. College students develop it, primarily as a survival skill, and plenty do not survive. Faculty at non-selective campuses imagine that many students in the population of a selective school can pick up a new method from scratch, and model this skill for fellow students. This is a direct benefit to social interactions in a university. To meet the needs of our students. 5) Expect the development of appropriate behaviors. Texts that give a clear summary statement after each section of a chapter model the summarizing process by indicating a suitable product, but should not do this for every chapter. If the product is useful to students, which they say it is, then developing the ability to write a summary or abstract for oneself is more valuable (meeting the long-range need) than the summary. I have been asked to revise a laboratory manual I've written to make the progression from introductory to independent work more gradual, reducing some of the aids earlier in the semester. It seemed good advice. Jim Carroll Phone (402) 554-3639 University of Nebraska at Omaha Dept (402) 554-2651 Department of Chemistry FAX (402) 554-3888 6001 Dodge St. Omaha, NE 68182-0109 jcarroll@unomaha.edu [ Part 18: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:29:05 -0000 From: Bill Doody Subject: Re: WV-Re: farnaiz -Re: Students Not Read But "The Private Universe" tapes propose that reading science books is the reason why students (even Harvard and MIT Graduates) don't underestand science. Books are the problem. Students "really" understand what they "do". Books just tell them what they need to repeat when given test questions. Bill Doody [ Part 19: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:56:00 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Re: sjd Reply to David Ritter 4/30 David Ritter recently commented about track athletes and the sub-4 minute mile. Researchers found: "When they looked for a reason, they find that even the best of the best runners today are simply unwilling to train as much as the high school students of the early-to-mid 60s." I'd love to see the experimental design for this. I have a few general inquiries regarding stats and thinking not in discrete patterns but in terms of probability. I wonder how many high schoolers of the total population running the mile ran sub-4 minute miles 30 years ago? My guess is not a lot, a very small percentage indeed. Second, those high schoolers that did run a sub-4 minute mile were likely the high school track equivalent of the Linus Paulings, Richard Feynmans, and R.B. Woodwards of science. Definitely a subset of a subset of a subset etc. Why no sub-4 minute milers today? Well, first of all, how often is it supposed to happen and how regularly? We don't know. But we do know that it doesn't happen very often based on reality. It's also quite possible that with the immense popularity of basketball, football, and baseball today compared to 30 years ago, some very fast athletes that would have tried out for track in the 60's are now playing other more currently popular sports. Furthermore, there hasn't been a 0.400 hitter in baseball since Ted Williams some 40+ something years ago. Can we conclude objectively from this that today's hitters are not as good as Ted Williams? No (sentimental reasons excluded). Ted Williams also didn't have to contend with relief pitchers as often as today's hitters. What about today's high school football/basketball/baseball players? I'm certain studies would show that they are overall definitely bigger, stronger, and better (technique, knowledge of game, etc.) than players 30 years ago? Why? Well, first there are more of them today so even with equal probability of talent spread (an assumption) we're just more likely to see better athletes at individual events. But more importantly from a statistical viewpoint, they are willing, for whatever reason, to spend time in the weightroom, attend mini-camps, study film, dream of being some hotshot college star, etc. (unfortunately, too the extreme and at the expense of studying/learning). Also, those programs/opportunities/emphasis exist today more prevalently than in the 60's. It is quite possible that there have been no sub-4 minute high school milers in 30 years because today's high school milers are indeed lazier (more frequently) than their predecessors. But having taught high school before entering grad school I'd say that today's best high school students are better than the best when I was in high school. Unfortunately, it's a double edged sword. Today's worst high schoolers I believe are worse compared to my high school class. I believe what we're seeing here with the education statistics and many other types of related stats is that today's data spread is greater than that 30 years ago. The edges of the data spread have increased more than the middle portion. Finally, it would be interesting to see how the knowledge level (however that would be measured with random methods and unbiased response factors and accuracy) among high schoolers or the public in general is stratified. My guess is that there wouldn't be a statistically significant difference. There would likely be a difference but would that difference be important? and if so would it really tell us anything useful? Cheers. Scott Donnelly Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "You can't rise up to low expectations." -Author Unknown [ Part 20: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:14:05 -0400 From: Scott Van Bramer Subject: 4 minute mile At 11:56 4/30/98 -0700, you wrote: >I wonder how many high schoolers of the total population running the mile >ran sub-4 minute miles 30 years ago? My guess is not a lot, a very small >percentage indeed. Second, those high schoolers that did run a sub-4 minute >mile were likely the high school track equivalent of the Linus Paulings, >Richard Feynmans, and R.B. Woodwards of science. Definitely a subset of a >subset of a subset etc. FYI, For a history of records in the mens mile, check out: http://www.iaaf.org/sport/trackfield/21.html The first sub 4:00 minute mile was run in 1954. Respectfully, Scott Van Bramer Department of Chemistry Widener University, Chester, PA 19013 svanbram@science.widener.edu http://science.widener.edu/~svanbram [ Part 21: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:46:56 -0500 From: sc18 Subject: Re: correct URL Hi. I sent apost with the wrong URL. Here is an exact copy of it: http://kcox.cityu.edu.hk/papers/deeplrng.htm Sincerely, Ken F. [ Part 22: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:09:14 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: WV-Re-BD-RE:farnaiz-Re-Students Not Read Books are not the problem. The problem is comprehension of what people see and read. I know many students/people who know what they "did" but haven't the foggiest idea of what or how "it" happened. Students boil eggs, use microwave ovens, see images on TV but they don't know or understand what they are doing or what they are seeing. [ Part 23: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:38:11 -0700 From: Walter Volland Subject: WV-Differences?-RE- Students Not It occurred to me that students in Spain may have different costs than students in the USA. Francisco, do students buy their own texts and pay registration fees in Spain? Who selects texts in Spanish Chemistry Departments? Does each university make an independent choice? Walt [ Part 24: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:36:15 -0400 From: "Stephen L. Morgan" <"slmorgan@worldnet.att.net"@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Subject: Re: 4-min miles Dr. David Ritter wrote: > > Last week I came across an interesting article in the newspaper. It pointed > out that there has not been a sub-four minute mile running time by a high > school student in over thirty years. Stephen Jay Gould published an interesting book entitled "Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Palto to Darwin" (Harmony Books, NY, 1996) that relates to this problem. In the 54-page Part 3 of the book, Gould addresses the dearth of 0.400 hitters in mdoern baseball. He attributes the decline in 0.400 hitting to: (1) the shrinking variation around a stable mean in the Gaussian distribution as baseball play improves; and (2) to the compression of the Gaussian distribution against the right-hand wall of human performance limits. He says, "Someday, someone will hit 0.400 again--though this time the achievement will be so much more difficult than ever before and therefore so much more worthy of honor." How this relates to our discussion, I am not sure. I do know that the "game" has changed since I was a student. "Modern" students have different priorities, different abilities, and different tools to use than previous generations of students. I like to think, optimistically as does Gould, that excellence is spreading. Best wishes, Steve Stephen L. Morgan, Professor Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemisty The University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 email: SLMorgan@psc.sc.edu, SLMorgan@orldnet.att.net [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:35:18 -0400 From: "Dr. Wendy Elcesser" Subject: Some observations about texts,etc I tried to send this earlier but my mail program confused the listserve. I think the comments I make here may even be more relevant thant they were a few days ago... >I find it interesting that the post-paper topics for discussion has generated quite a bit of mail quite quickly. It is heartening to note that so many of us want to better serve our students. This conference has made me feel less like I am "reinventing the chemistry wheel" by myself. > >With respect to texts: >I used to teach at a university in which the students "rented" their texts for the semester. It was set up more or less like a library loan system. At the time I found it odd, but with the ever-increasing costs of textbooks.... > >Many of the students do sell back their texts even within their majors. The chemistry majors that have parted with their first-year text, however, have often expressed regret at having done so when they become juniors or seniors. > >A few years ago, we conducted a survey of the General Chemistry courses (generally a non-chemistry majors' course) which included questions about textbooks. When the students considered the text's cost over two semesters, they found it more reasonably priced. Also, their impression as to how useful the text was was greatly influenced by whether they found it useful to take to class. Since the text is their primary resource (because I do not go home with the students), I have often structured exercises that require that the students refer to the text while in class. For example, an impromptu in-class assignment to solve/answer one of the recommended problems. The students with the book in hand get finished more quickly than those hoping someone will allow them to read over a shoulder just to copy the problem. > >Wendy > Wendy Lou Elcesser (endyw) [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:16:16 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: W1 - DR: Addendum to DR: Goals and Reading the Text (4-30) Another goal or objective: Students should learn problem solving and critical thinking techniques. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In reading TEXTBOOKS students should learn that virtually every textbook has errors. Because it's in the book it isn't necessarily true. Donald Rosenthal Department of Chemistry Clarkson University Potsdam NY 13699-5810 ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:45:02 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: W1 - DR: LABORATORY One subject mentioned in "SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education" (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/start.htm and http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/threea.htm#barr) was the relationship between laboratory work and the rest of the course. " . . weak relationship between classes and supporting laboratory work . laboratory exercises . . mechanical - seemingly unconnected to concepts of science. Lack of faculty or teaching assistance expertise on site . ." Does anyone have suggestions? Should and can laboratory work be connected to the rest of the course? Is it a separate and independent entity with separate objectives? [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:24:35 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Re: sjd Students not reading text and more... Yesterday I carelessly left out what the point was about my rambling on regarding Ted Williams and high school athletes, etc. A newspaper article reported that some study found that "...the best of the best runners today are simply unwilling to train as much as the high school students of the early-to-mid 60s [for the mile run]." This was the explanation given for why a sub-4 minute mile had not been run by a high schooler in 30+ years. It was then suggested that this report parallels earlier and likely continued discussion about today's students vs. yesteryears students (reading the textbook, intellectual preparedness, laziness, etc.). It indeed parallels discussion but it's the interpretation that is important and which I question. First, I take such comparisons with a grain of salt. Statistical inference is a tricky business and is highly susceptible to experimental design, the specific data acquired, and knowing with some acceptable certainity (oftentimes determined by the experimenter) the probability of occurence for the variable(s) under study. Hence, one of my initial questions: how often is a sub-4 minute mile supposed to happen and how regularly? Or how often should a major leaguer hit 0.400? I rambled on about possible explanations contrary to the laziness explanation which seems to be inadequate as an explanation since sub-4 minute miles are very infrequent among high school track athletes...even the best. These same arguments are applicable to why supposedly today's students are not as good (overall) as yesterday's students. I personally don't believe this is the case. Second, much has been said in this conference and others as well about the inadequacies of today's students. I imagine this was said and believed since the establishment of higher education. Having taught high school before entering grad school I'd say that at the high school I taught its best students were better than the best when I was in high school. Unfortunately, it's a double edged sword. The worst high schoolers I taught are worse compared to my high school class. This was likely the same for students of the 60's compared to those of the 50's and so on. There are more students today than in the 50's and 60's (establishment of community colleges, increase in the population of the middle class, easier college entrance requirements, etc.) so we're more likely to see unprepared students. This though in and of itself does not show that today's students are worse overall than students of previous decades. The "dearth" of good freshmen chemistry students could possibly be a result that the good students simply are more interested in business (a very popular choice right now) as a career and hence don't take chemistry. Or because of the glamour associated with becoming a M.D. students who in the past wouldn't have thought about it because of their dislike for science now see it as a viable career option (obviously not knowing that chemistry is a tough course and must be passed with a rather high grade). It was kindly pointed out to me that Stephen Jay Gould in his book "Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Palto to Darwin" talks about why there hasn't been a 0.400 hitter since the 1950's. I was unaware of this book but will definitely buy it since the statistical analysis of this question is similar in scope to the discussion about today's vs. yesterday's students. Statistics or reports about unique sub-populations (sub-4 minute milers, chemistry students, and 0.400 hitters) are unfortunately interpreted by the public and media to apply to an entire population. Very rarely is this the case. Cheers! Scott Donnelly Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "You can't rise up to low expectations." -Author Unknown [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:37:17 -0400 From: Bill Vining Subject: Re: W1 - DR: LABORATORY >From: Donald Rosenthal >was the relationship between laboratory work and the rest of the course. > >" . . weak relationship between classes and supporting laboratory work . > laboratory exercises . . mechanical - seemingly unconnected to >concepts of science. Lack of faculty or teaching assistance expertise on >site . ." > >Does anyone have suggestions? >Should and can laboratory work be connected to the rest of the course? >Is it a separate and independent entity with separate objectives? > When I was at Hartwick College I used to teach a course that fully integrated lecture and lab. We would start with a short introduction, do about an hour of lab work, do about 30 minutes of computer simulations, analyze all the information, and discuss it until we were done with the topic. Three 2-hour meetings. It was great and the person who is there now (Susan Young) is continuing with it. Of course, the class had 20 students. Here at UMass we are now trying the opposite. After years of student complaints that the lab and lecture did not mesh, even when they seemed to, we decided to try admitting defeat. We have taken stoichiometry out of the lecture and have assigned it to lab. (We of course do deal with other topics in lab in the context of stoichiometry, and of course faculty use stoichiometry in lecture once it is taught in lab). We tell the students this up front and the complaints have gone away. This is only the 1st year we are doing this, so we don't yet know whether we really like it or not. I sure did prefer the combined L&L, but beats me how to do it with 1200 students and 7 faculty class slots. Bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Vining Associate Professor of Chemical Education and Director of General Chemistry Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 413-545-2352 Fax: 413-545-5410 http://soulcatcher.chem.umass.edu [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:29:56 -0400 From: "O. Frederick Onasch" Subject: Re: W1 - DR: LABORATORY My classes, consisting of students with many different goals for their education, lead me to think that we may have missed the main objective,'the study of matter and the changes it undergoes', the world around us. The classroom presents one way to study this, the laboratory another. Must the topics be the same in both? I don't think so since some are better taught in the classroom and others better in the lab, the library, the grocery store etc.. I think each teacher will be more effective if they decide how to present each topic in the way that works best for them and their class in their particular environment. (Which topics are generally accepted leads to another ongoing discussion.) Making these choices and communicating them to the class along with the regular objectives for the course should connect the experiences for the students and those who study how we do things. (I do teach all my lectures and labs personally.) -- Dr. O. Frederick Onasch, Chemistry Professor SUNY College of Technology Delhi, New York 13753-1190 Phone:607-746-4373 Fax:607-746-4455 [ Part 8: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:30:58 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: JC on W1 - DR: LABORATORY (fwd) Forwarded message from Jim Carroll ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- From: "James A. Carroll" Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:48:20 CST Subject: JC on W1 - DR: LABORATORY Reordering and responding to Donald Rosenthal's questions: > Is [laboratory an] entity with separate objectives? Yes. For example, uncertainties and different types of error are real in lab, and gaining skill in dealing with these is an objective reasonably absent from lecture. I would place development of organization for extended sets of calculations as a lab objective, though others use "challenge problems" to address this in lecture. > Is [laboratory] a separate entity? Here, yes. As Bill Vining has already pointed out, integration is possible in some (less populous) academic settings, and impossible at many campuses. At UNO students earn separate grades in the two courses, and lab sections have students from different lecture sections, which generally have different schedules through the semester. > Is [laboratory an] independent entity? No. Students are not going to act in the manner of mature scientists and develop all the required chemical principles from their lab work. Lab and other course work have to be complementary. >Should and can laboratory work be connected to the rest of the >course? The answer may lie in what one understands "connected to" to mean. Some of my students clearly expect all topics to be covered in class first, then reinforced in lab. In this frame, "connected to" means that the lab would follow the class as soon as possible. Laboratory certainly "can" be connected this way, but I don't think it should because it gives students an erroneous sense of science. My bias is to expect lab to introduce a topic, which would be given a more abstract context in lecture, then reinforced with assignments which drew on both. A fair portion of faculty are uncomfortable with that, and it is impractical to arrange where different students are scheduled for laboratory meetings four to six days apart. So "connected to" means topics are introduced in class or laboratory, by design so that the introduction is as concrete as possible, and so that instructors can help students anticipate the development of the topic. Such loose connection requires students accept delayed gratification, which isn't popular in our culture. >" . . weak relationship between classes and supporting laboratory work" Lack of close class-lab connection can be compensated by consciously connecting lab tasks to earlier lab tasks, and explicitly reinforcing lab skills. I am now of the feeling that a connect-the- lab-to-the-lecture-topic-of-the-week design for laboratory fosters student attitudes that there is nothing new to be learned in lab, with the expected outcome. Lab instruction and reports should repeatedly ask students to refer to earlier work. If the student's earlier work is given validity in this manner, then the problems of > "laboratory exercises . . mechanical - seemingly unconnected to > concepts of science" and dry-labbing will be reduced. (Sorry, I don't have the data to prove this.) > " .. Lack of faculty or teaching assistance expertise on site . ." ..is less a problem because students are becoming their own experts. There is a problem with instructors who don't buy into the course objectives, and whose personal objective is to leave the lab in the soonest possible time, with student reports which clearly indicate that they've been through the process mechanically. Such behavior is well reinforced by students. (Would an economics quotation about cheap money driving out the dear money be appropriate here?) Jim Carroll Phone (402) 554-3639 University of Nebraska at Omaha Dept (402) 554-2651 Department of Chemistry FAX (402) 554-3888 6001 Dodge St. Omaha, NE 68182-0109 jcarroll@unomaha.edu [ Part 9: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:55:23 -0700 From: Bob Bruner Subject: Re: BB, MJC -Students Not Reading Textbook I have also been a long term user of Peters (now Peters & Cracolice). I think what Saunders tried to do with the new FlexText was well motivated. Publishing the book loose-leaf, with no buyback, is a good idea. Further, the conscious consideration of alternative orders of presentation has resulted in more cross references within the book -- a big plus. The lack of sequential Ch numbers is a serious problem. I found it a great annoyance. I got a colleague to look at it, as she would be quite interested in using a lower cost book. She was so turned off by the confusion caused by lack of Ch numbers that she would not discuss it further. The lack of Ch numbers, i suspect, was a gimmick to "justify" the loose leaf format. Not needed, and very harmful. The merit of the looseleaf format is the price. Just do it. I think Saunders should be commended for their attempt to deal with the problem of too many editions. The FlexText may well be a good idea. In critizing it, let's be sure we criticize the problem with it, not the basic idea. Since I mentioned price as an issue here, let me add... A couple of years ago we changed lab manuals for intro chem. When we chose Timberlake over the previous book, it was largely because we liked it better. But it was a significant point that it was also somewhat less expensive. bob Bob Bruner Contra Costa College, San Pablo, CA and UC Berkeley Extension [ Part 10: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:57:32 -0000 From: Bill Doody Subject: Re: Books are Bad But the "The Physical Universe" tapes suggest that students graduating from MIT and Harvard, who went to the best Prep Schools, read the best science books, and passed the best science tests, are now ignorant of basic science as they graduate from Harvard and MIT. The point is that "comprehension" of text based science is no measure of understanding of science concepts. Bill Doody [ Part 11: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:35:19 EDT From: Lucky bel Subject: WVV-Re: W1 - DR :Integrated-separ LAB Dear Colleagues, Our general chemistry students are embryonic scientists. in their previous experience they rarely have made observations, collected data systematically, tried to do analysis, etc. They may do some of these but often they don't do all. This means they need to go through a learning process in doing these things. We have many ways to approach this lack of experience. We can establish separate lab classes to develop manipulative skills, the scientific method, and technique or we can set up classes that introduce experiments that more ambitious. I think we select ambitious experiments. It seems reasonnable to us that many skills can be learned simultaneously. ( Walking & chewing gum.) I teach classes that are unified. I see my lecture students in lab. This is a good situation because I can encourage them to recognize observations that tie to our lecture discussion. There is a cross pollination between the two class experiences. This means I have a bias toward integration of labs and lectures. I lean toward the idea that labs are supposed to provide students with sensory experiences that reinforce the concepts discussed in lecture. They are supposed to see where the laws come from and how they can be used to predict chemical behavior. If the two facets of the class complement one another students can start to see the unity of chemical concepts more easily. I believe my students enjoy lab. :-) Students frequently get see a false and disjointed picture of chemistry in their general chem. They often think gas laws are separate from thermodynamics, equilibrium is independent from kinetic theory, bonding has no link to kinetics, units are only a general annoyance, etc. Segregating the lab and lecture can contribute to this compartmentalization. At the graduate level that specialization may be necessary, but even there Pchem folks work with organic folk, chemists work with biologists, etc. I want students to see chemistry as an all encompassing discipline, not as a series of isolated subcultures or ideas. Good heavens the interdisciplinary movement tries to integrate math, english, physics, biology and chemistry. ( That could be another area for discussion.) Cheers, Walt Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 luckybel@aol.com [ Part 12: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:47:43 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0 From: "Lanzafame, Frank" Subject: Re: BB, MJC - Students Not reading Textbook Bob Bruner Contra Costa College, San Pablo, CA and UC Berkeley Extension writes: > I have also been a long term user of Peters (now Peters & Cracolice). I > think what Saunders tried to do with the new FlexText was well motivated. > Publishing the book loose-leaf, with no buyback, is a good idea. Further, > the conscious consideration of alternative orders of presentation has > resulted in more cross references within the book -- a big plus. > > The lack of sequential Ch numbers is a serious problem. I found it a great > annoyance. I got a colleague to look at it, as she would be quite interested > in using a lower cost book. She was so turned off by the confusion caused by > lack of Ch numbers that she would not discuss it further. > I think Saunders should be commended for their attempt to deal with the > problem of too many editions. The FlexText may well be a good idea. In > critizing it, let's be sure we criticize the problem with it, not the basic > idea. Bob, Thanks for the comments. One subtle problem in NOT building a natural sequence is that the reinforcement that the author provided with his "natural" sequence becomes more difficult. Peters used to reinforce nomenclature after it was presented. If I chose to defer some of the nomenclature, then it was MY problem when my students didn't understand the material which was being reinforced. It strikes me that this reinforcement is one of the prices to be paid for trying to be all things to all people. We haven't made a firm decision yet. Two of us (along with some adjuncts) teach this course. My colleague absolutely hates the lack of page numbers. This spring, there were sufficient used books available that we stuck with the old text for the some 85 students we had. /\~~~/\ > > Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry > ^ ^ > Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. > (_O_) > Rochester, NY 14623 716-292-2396 > U > Internet: flanzafame@monroecc.edu --------- Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:46:53 -0400 From: pankuch-new Subject: Powerpoint lectures Could we persuade Chemistry book publishers to put Powerpoint lectures based on their texts, on their CD's in a modifiable form? They have the experts to make the material look good, and as I've seen to create some clever multimedia. If we had the basic lecture material available in an attractive package we could spend time modifying the basic package for our local students. Supplied with a choice of pictures, animation's and simulations and other multimedia to choose from this would free each of us from reinventing an entire package. Secondly are their enough of us with some expertise that we'd be willing to share and to do the same thing at a public web site where the above material could be shared for an assortment of courses? Brian Pankuch [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 10:58:30 -0400 From: John Kotz Subject: Re: Powerpoint lectures The note from Brian Pankuch prompts me to try a reply. I have been using PowerPoint lectures extensively for several years in my general chemistry course. The notes follow the 3rd edition of the general chemistry book I write with Paul Treichel and cover the entire year of the course. They incorporate the images, animations, and movies that Bill Vining and I used on our CD-ROM (that we developed with Archipelago Productions and Saunders College Publishing). (In order to use the notes the CD-ROM must be loaded in addition to the PowerPoint files.) I develop and use them on a Macintosh but they are also available for Win95. Anyone is welcome to have these and to modify them as you wish. (Please modify them! These are just class notes and include all of my idiosyncrasies and errors). I believe they are available at the Saunders Web site (at Saunderscollege.com). If you can't find them I would be happy to send you a copy if you will send me a Zip disk. (The Mac version is about 40 MB and the Win version is over 100 MB.) A new version of the notes will be available this fall to follow the new edition of the book and CD-ROM (both being published in July). Jack Kotz John C. Kotz Chemistry Department State University College Oneonta, NY 13820 (office) 607-436-2454 (office-fax) 607-4362654 (home) 607-432-2646 (home-fax) 607-432-7902 [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:00:31 -0700 From: George Wiger Subject: Re: Powerpoint lectures >Secondly are their enough of us with some expertise that we'd be willing to > share >and to do the same thing at a public web site where the above material could >be shared for an assortment of courses? > >Brian Pankuch > I'm in the process of setting up a server dedicated to just this. If you wish to read a preliminary outline of the project (supported in part by the Dreyfus Fdn), go to : http://chemistry.csudh.edu/wwwproject.html If you wish, you can then join the email list for the effort. George Wiger [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 18:35:50 -0400 From: lferrier Subject: animations on the web There are some excellent animations on the Iowa State chemistry site. (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fipse-chem/homepage.html) These may have been mentioned before, but I just used them today. I also appreciate that these are available without charge. Since I teach at a very small branch of a state university, the cost of software programs and up-to-date computers is a problem. Putting this type of program on the web is a GREAT help to those of us at smaller schools. Thanks to all of you who do just that!!! [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:13:01 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU Re: BEGIN DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY It is Monday, May 4. This is the second of three weeks for discussion of selected topics. Last week's topic was: WHAT WE CAN DO TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STUDENTS We considered the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education report: "SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS WEEK WILL BE DEVOTED TO GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A number of papers in this conference considered the development and use of instructional materials based on modern technology. What are the instructional technologies, their uses and products? Why should we use technology in our courses? What is technology good for? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Some interesting quotes: " . . modern chemists routinely and facilely use computers for instrument control, data reduction, molecular modeling, personal productivity, and access to on-line information resources. . . those in chemical education . . (adapt) standard software packages to the solution of chemical problems and (create) . . teaching scenarios used for educating chemistry students. . . New strategies are needed for learning and for the creation of learning environments. These strategies need to be implemented through the wise use of technology so as to streamline the curriculum and reform the pedagogical approach. Furthermore, these strategies must be more than just faster or fancier ways of transmitting information. . . The new educational paradigm that we support is designed to prepare students to be autonomous learners and constructors of concepts. Computers, a technology with extraordinary potential, can be tools that support teachers in achieving this objective." T.J. Zielinski and Mary L. Swift in "Using Computers in Chemistry and Chemical Education", T.J. Zielinski and Mary L. Swift (editors), ACS, Washington, DC 1997 The book contains sections on: A View of the Codependence of Chemistry and Computers, Accessing Chemical Information, Fundamental Computer Skills in Modern Chemical Practice, Computational Chemistry in the Curriculum and Teaching Chemistry with Computers. ------ " Computer applications . . are now firmly within the mainstream of chemistry, and . . the computer is considered an essential tool for teaching the practice of chemistry. However, computers are much less commonly employed (and even less often well-employed) in teaching the much larger body of knowledge upon which chemical science is based. . . There is reason to believe that the predictions that were made in the early 1970s about the potential of the computer as a tool for the delivery of instruction may finally be realized over the next decade." Steven K. Lower in Chapter 19 of the previous reference. ------ "The traditional face-to-face classroom learning situation is generally assumed to be the best to support learning, with other learning modes perceived as less effective. There is no evidence to support this assumption. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Online environments facilitate learning outcomes that are equal or superior to those generated in the face-to-face situation." from "Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online" by Linda Harasim, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1995. ------ "We are fascinated with technology. We expect it to make a difference in our lives, and particularly in education. We see its effects as beneficent. We look for it to change, and improve, what has come before. . . . in education, the possibility (and desirability) of creating and using technologically based systems for teaching, learning, and provision of educational services are typically seen as basically transparent questions. Should we install large numbers of computers in the nation's classrooms? Should children use on those computers widely available commercial software packages (word processors, spreadsheets, databases, etc.)? Should we encourage the design, creation, and installation of a variety of new, multimedia instructional programs? Should we connect increasing numbers of schools, teachers and students to the Internet? In almost every case, we answer "yes" before we can fully comprehend the costs of time involved, much less the more fundamental issues of learning, development, or social organization where the impact of these decisions may be felt. . . . Technology itself, rather than the particular goals and ends we wish to have students achieve by using it, often seems to have the priority. . . . technology is not a panacea. Its use does not automatically lead to more, better or cheaper learning . . ." Stephen T Kerr in "Technology and the Future of Schooling" - edited by Stephen T. Kerr, University of Chicago Press, 1996. ------ " . . the enormous amount of attention and resources devoted to the use of technology in the education and training realms distracts us from the really important problems and issues that need to be addressed. . . educational technology is primarily . . a distraction (on a grand scale) from what matters most - effective learning and good teaching. . . Educational technology as currently practiced seldom works. . . . . we should de-emphasize our use of technology in education and focus on addressing the genuine needs of learners, communities and societies." Greg Kearsley in an article entitled "Educational Technology: A Critique" (in Educational Technology - March-April 1998, Vol 38 (2), p. 47 to 51.) Kearsley provides some specific examples and briefly discusses instructional television, computer-based instruction, adaptive technology (hardware and software designed to make it easier for people with disabilities to use computers), distance learning, teacher education and the flawed logic of educational technology. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are a few URLs which may be of interest: http://www.edutechnet.com/ http://putwest.boces.org/Standards.html Examine the links