July 1993 ConfChem Discussion Archive

=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 09:19:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 5 -Discussion

PAPER 5

IT'S HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME by Joyce C. Brockwell

This is an interesting proposal. If well planned and
implemented, such software could be very useful. In
Appendix A the dialog ends with the student having
selected two compounds and being told (s)he has guessed the identity
of the compound. Personally, I would like to see another question
asked: What could you do to determine which of the two (or more)
compounds you actually have? This question could be asked on the
worksheet.

SQUALOR is a Simulated QUAL ORganic analysis program which is
quite well done. Has the AUTHOR used this with her students? What do
some of the other PARTICIPANTS think of SQUALOR? Does it play a
useful role in teaching students something about Qualitative Organic
Analysis?

Donald Rosenthal
Box 5810
Department of Chemistry
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699-5810
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 09:45:57 -0400
From: Mary Swift
Subject: Paper 5

I would like to suggest that the program to grade to the organic
qual unknowns could be made into an instructional tool that aids
the student in developing his thinking/problem solving skills

Once the data base is created the "front end" would be structured
as a laboratory. That is the student would be presented with an
unknown and given "access" to a set of tools. The student would
select the analyses to be carried out and come to his conclusion
about the identity of the unknown. For an example of this type
of instructional package see the BioQUEST library which was
received an EDUCOM award as best curriculum last year. In some
ways these applications come very close to the ways in
which we try to approach our own problem solving and the students
are "given" access to equipment that would normally be to
expensive to let them "play" with.

Mary L.Swift
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 09:05:57 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: Paper 5 -Discussion

We have used SQUALOR as a supplement to qualitative organic analysis in both the
majors and non majors organic chemistry lab. Students liked this program
very much. They felt it prepared them both for the actual laboratory exercise
and for the lab exams. Many students came in on their own time to work
additional problems over what had been assigned. I think it is good as a
supplement, but I would hate to see it replace hands-on work in the lab.

Barbara Gaddis'
U.C.C.S.
Science Learning Center
P.O. Box 7150
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 10:53:56 -0500
From: Joyce Brockwell
Subject: Re: Paper 5
In-Reply-To: <01H00T7INZG00011VI@nuacc.acns.nwu.edu> from "Mary Swift" at Jul
1, 93 09:45:57 am

Mary Swift has suggested that the qual grader become an instructor as well,
through the simple expedient of allowing the students to study the system
and the analysis process by taking hypothetical unknowns through the
program. This, indeed, would be a powerful use of such software, allowing
the sudents to achieve a level of "comfort" with, e.g. single unknown, to
present them with more challenges in the real lab (mixtures!)

Yes, it would have that very practical use implicit in its construction.
J.C.Brockwell
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 11:02:10 -0500
From: Joyce Brockwell
Subject: Re: Paper 5 -Discussion
In-Reply-To: <01H00SE51ASG000F9I@nuacc.acns.nwu.edu> from "Donald Rosenthal"
at Jul 1, 93 09:19:00 am

Don Rosenthal has inquired about the possibibility of a "back end" function
on the qual program--a last inquiry to the user about distinguishing the
specific unknown from the choice of two given by the final guesses. Such an
extension would be possible, but , I suspect, better done in
"wetware"--student-teacher interactions. Either way, its a natural.

Don, as well as Barbara Gaddis, have inquired about SQUALOR, the
award-winning software simulating qualitative analysis in organic chemistry.
SQUALOR, and other useful instructional programs, may potentially shorten
the learning curve in mastering strategy in qual. With practic3 on the
simulator, students may learn to ask themselves the next question during the
analysis. Use of the comuputer cannot replace the laboraty experience, but
it can make it "easier" for the students, thus reducing stress and allowing
the experiments to be a bit more challenging.

At present, Northwestern lacks the hardware to dedicate to chemistry service
courses on computers. In fact, we are in a better position to allow the
laboratory experience (including instrumentation!) However, the computers
will eventually find their way into our curriculum, allowing simulations to
expand the students' experience and enhance their laboratory learning.
Joyce Brockwell
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 18:06:36 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper5 discussion - SQUALOR

I heard the author of SQUALOR speak at the Fall ACS meeting in
NYC in 1991. I also have seen the program in action. I recall
that one of the purposes of the program was to allow students
intensive practice with a variety of samples (many more than
could be done practically in lab by one student in one
semester). There was no intention that the program be used to
substitute for real wet lab work.

As I recall the program allows input of new compounds including
spectra. With a secure set of unknowns in a separate file it
can even be used for assessment with or without the professor
at the elbow of the student. The main problem that I
anticipate with SQUALOR or the program proposed here is that
the success depends on the attitude of the instructor. If
simulations are a valued type of educational tool then the
instructor will foster use of the program. If the instructor
views simulations as just so much guessing then the students
will not get much out of the program and it will probably not
be used often or effectively. Even a good and interesting
program like SQUALOR can be made a boring chore for the student
if the correct parameters are set in class or lab by the
instructor.

Personally I prefer the SQUALOR approach. Its goal is to
foster student learning by providing painless rapid practice
sessions. Probably the best of all worlds would be to have
both programs, SQUALOR and the one proposed here, especially at
larger departments. It is important to get the instructor out
from behind the desk and out from under a pile of papers and
into the lab talking to and mentoring students.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 17:16:20 -0500
From: Carolyn Sweeney Judd
Subject: Re: Paper 5
In-Reply-To: <9307011408.AA15070@umd5.umd.edu>

On Thu, 1 Jul 1993, Mary Swift wrote:
> For an example of this type
> of instructional package see the BioQUEST library which was
> received an EDUCOM award as best curriculum last year.

I would like to hear more about this instructional package.

Carolyn S. Judd Central College, Houston Community College System
1300 Holman Houston TX 77004
713-630-1103 cjudd@tenet.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 20:05:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 5
In-Reply-To: <9307012222.AA20976@umd5.umd.edu>

> I would like to hear more about this instructional package.

BioQUEST is a set of simulations and related material for biology
instruction (genetics, biometrics, molecular biology, etc.). It's
a significant, highly-rated cooperative effort of several institutions.
It is being published in a very enlightened way by the U. of Maryland
Academic Software Development Group. Write to asdg@umdd.umd.edu.
You can also download a very nice introduction to the project from
cs.beloit.edu /public/bioquest.

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 10:13:57 +1000
From: Adrian Blackman
Subject: Paper 5 and TORGANAL

Paper 5 - It's how you play the game, by Joyce Brockwell

There have been several references to SQUALOR. I would like to draw
attention to another program which simulates organic qualatative analysis.
It is called TORGANAL - Tasmanian organic analysis.

The program aims to simulate the process a chemist would use to identify an
unknown organic compound. It includes both physical (including
spectroscopic) and chemical tests. It has been designed as a pre-laboratory
rehearsal so that students can approach the real task of identifying an
organic unknown with more confidence and efficiency.

TORGANAL has been very favorably reviewed in 'Software Reviews' volume 7,
pages 20-21 (published by the CTI Centre for Chemistry, University of
Liverpool, UK) and in 'Chemistry in Australia', May, 1993, page 226. There
are licenced users in the USA, UK and Australia.

An IBM compatible computer is required with at least EGA graphics and 640K RAM.

The program is available as shareware from SIMTEL-20 in the directory
EDUCATION as the file TORG311.ZIP or from Budgetware, PO Box 496, Newtown,
New South Wales, Australia, 2042, as catalogue number PC8115.

Dr Adrian Blackman E-Mail Adrian.Blackman@chem.utas.edu.au
Chemistry Department
University of Tasmania
PO Box 252C,Hobart
Tasmania
Australia 7001
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 06:08:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 5 and TORGANAL
In-Reply-To: <9307020016.AA26360@umd5.umd.edu>

Here are some other FTP sources for TORGANAL:

torg310.zip: Organic chemistry ID of unknowns simulator
Host ftp.uu.net
Location: /systems/ibmpc/msdos/simtel20/education
FILE -rw-r--r-- 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip
Host rigel.acs.oakland.edu
Location: /pub/msdos/education
FILE -rw-r--r-- 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip
Host wuarchive.wustl.edu
Location: /mirrors/msdos/education
FILE -rw-r--r-- 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:02:07 EDT
From: Nava Ben Zvi <201226@UMDD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Carolyn Judd on USE OF WORLD OF CHEMISTRY VIDEOS IN COURSES
In-Reply-To: Message received on Wed, 30 Jun 93 19:15:50 EDT

regarding John Moore's comment about CD ROMs. Yes, we have to get permission
to use the WOC on CD ROM and I will be delighted tohelp and get us started.
Nava
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:36:10 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: Paper 5 and TORGANAL
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri,
2 Jul 1993 06:08:00 EDT from

I don't find torganal as torg310.zip at any of the three sites you suggest.
Any ideas?

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:48:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 5 and TORGANAL
In-Reply-To: <9307021338.AA21080@umd5.umd.edu>

I just did another Archie search and came up with:

Host gatekeeper.dec.com

Location: /.2/micro/msdos/simtel20/education
FILE -r--r--r-- 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip

Host gdr.bath.ac.uk

Location: /simtel-cdrom/msdos/educatin
FILE -r-xr-xr-x 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip

Host nctuccca.edu.tw

Location: /PC-MsDos/Garbo-pc/science
FILE -r--r--r-- 172949 Apr 10 1992 torg310.zip

Host plaza.aarnet.edu.au

Location: /micros/pc/garbo/pc/science
FILE -r--r--r-- 172949 Apr 10 1992 torg310.zip

Host wuarchive.wustl.edu

Location: /mirrors/msdos/education
FILE -rw-r--r-- 172682 Apr 21 1992 torg310.zip
Location: /mirrors4/garbo.uwasa.fi/science
FILE -rw-rw-r-- 172949 Apr 10 1992 torg310.zip

Things are always changing on the Internet, and I suppose that even
Archie might be out of date, since it's my understanding that
individual sites are polled by Archie only about once a month.

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:47:56 -0400
From: HANKS@FRMNVAX1.BITNET
Subject: Re: paper5 discussion - SQUALOR

Several people have discussed the use of programs which simulate the
traditional "Organic Unknown" lab, ofter with the caveat that the programs
should not replace the wet chem lab. Last year, we began using SQUALOR to
do just that. Our reasoning is that while the logic process taught in the
unknown lab is valuble, many of the techniques are not. Organic chemists
in the "real world" rely of modern spectroscopic methods to identify
compounds while rarely resorting to a Tollen's test and etc. Please note
that while we no longer do a wet lab organic unknown, we have not reduced
the amount of time students spend in the wet chem lab. Rather, the wet chem
lab now focuses more on synthetic techniques and spectroscopic identification
of products.

Timothy Hanks
Department of Chemistry
Furman University
Greenville, SC
Hanks@frmnvax1.bitnet
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:05:37 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: Re: paper 5

> Spectroscopic data including ir and 1Hnmr absorptions, possibly uv and 13Cnmr
will be included as well

>Hanks: >Organic chemists in the "real world" rely on modern spectroscopic
methods to identify compounds while rarely resorting to a Tollen's test, etc.

Ms. Brockwell's paper is a well thought out approach to the development of a
computer program for grading unknowns in organic qual. I would like to develop
one aspect of writing such programs which is touched on in the paper but which
needs further consideration: How can programs be developed so that they can be
adapted to the needs of other teachers?

One obvious answer which Ms. Brockwell presents is separating the data base
from the program. Thus the data base will be useable by those including
spectroscopic techniques in the organic qual.

I agree with the use of C/C++ in writing code for programs like this. However
we must recognize that most teachers do not know this language. Thus it seems
to me that it is nexessary to move all the content out of the program and into
editable files. Without some separation like this I do not see how a program
like Brockwell's could be used with the prganic qual program here at Montana
State University.

I am working hard on considering how computer assisted instruction can be
written with this sort of separation. I would appreciate ideas on this from
any and all conference participants. My E-mail address is
"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu".

sincerely,
Reed Howald
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 18:48:20 -0400
From: "Mr. Science"
Subject: Re: paper 5

"Number One, engage text-extractor beam... NOW!!"
"Aye, Captain!!"
BBBZZZFFFTTT!!!
"Captain, previous message locked into extractor beam. Begin reply?"
"Mr. Riker... Make it so!"

>
>One obvious answer which Ms. Brockwell presents is separating the data base
>from the program. Thus the data base will be useable by those including
>spectroscopic techniques in the organic qual.
>
>I agree with the use of C/C++ in writing code for programs like this. However
>we must recognize that most teachers do not know this language. Thus it seems
>to me that it is nexessary to move all the content out of the program and into
>editable files. Without some separation like this I do not see how a program
>like Brockwell's could be used with the prganic qual program here at Montana
>State University.
>
>I am working hard on considering how computer assisted instruction can be
>written with this sort of separation. I would appreciate ideas on this from
>any and all conference participants. My E-mail address is
>"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu".
>

Hey guys, since Windows and other Windowing environments (XWindows, OS/2,
Mac UNIX) allow for graphics and "movies" to be displayed, why not use
Borland's Object Windows to allow different instructors to use the database
(appropriately configured to be used within Object Windows, of course!) to
design indivudal programs? That would solve the problem entirely, as Object
Windows really doesn't expect anyone to have a great deal of programming
background in any real sense.

Just my two cents worth!

regards,

Tony ;>

Date this awe-inspiring message was sent: 2-JUL-1993 18:45:27
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
| Anthony V. Rosati | |
| Department of Chemistry, | "A nation that cannot think, |
| Georgetown University | cannot survive." |
| Washington, D.C. 20057-2222 | |
| ROSATI@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU | - Norman Mailer, 1992 |
| A_ROSATI@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU | National Press Club |
# ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== #
| Information Exchange Coordinator and Member, Board of Directors |
| National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS) |
| 1993 - 1994 |
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 09:39:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 1 - General Discussion Period

Re: Paper 1 - General Discussion
From: Donald Rosenthal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 23:46:12 -0400
========
> From: theresa Julia Zielinski
> Organization: University at Buffalo
> Subject: paper1

> I have some questions that I could not ask because I was out of town.

> Do your students remain in lab for the full three hours?
* The experiments were designed so they would take the full three
* hours. Some student pairs work more efficiently than others
* and some less efficiently. Some students finish early. Some
* students need additional time in which to finish - they may stay
* beyond the three hours or else arrange to come in to finish an
* experiment.
-----------------------------

> Do the students have 6 hours of lab per week? I was not sure
> from the text.
* Yes
* There are six scheduled hours of laboratory each week for each
* student in this course.
-----------------------------

> Why do You use nylon as the polymer? Wouldn't the standard
> polystyrene in toluene or methanol/toluene mixtures or
> BSA in aqueous urea mixtures be
> as good for the purpose. This might free up some lab time
> for a laser experiment or a molecular modeling exercise.
* Generally, this is the only required polymer synthesis the
* students perform at Clarkson. The synthesis of Nylon-66 involves
* the interfacial reaction of a solution of adipyl chloride with a
* solution of 1,6-hexanediamine and gradually withdrawing the polymer
* rope. Students seem to enjoy the experiment.
* Molecular modelling is performed in organic chemistry using PC Model,
* HyperChem or SPARTAN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 19:29:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: POLL OF PARTICIPANTS ABOUT WHAT EVERY STUDENT SHOULD KNOW

PAPER 1

WHAT EVERY CHEMIST NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT COMPUTERS AND COMPUTING

There has been considerable discussion during the first session of
this Computer Conference about this topic. In some schools computer
courses are required. In other schools there is no requirement. Some
chemistry departments include much of what students learn about
computers and computing in their chemistry courses. In other schools
much is taught by other Departments. Some students have learned a great
deal about computers and computing before they enter college.

I would be interested in learning what PARTICIPANTS think EVERY
undergraduate and EVERY graduate student needs to know. I realize that
your answers may be quite subjective. Also, depending upon what a
student does he may use or need to know much more or much less about
computers and computing than what we teach.

Please fill out and return the following form to ME at
ROSEN2@CLVM.BITNET (NOT TO CHEMCONF) by JULY 16. I will summarize the
results and send the summary out during the General Discussion period
between August 16 and August 20.

======================================================================

WHAT SHOULD EVERY CHEMISTRY STUDENT KNOW ABOUT COMPUTERS AND COMPUTING?

Your Name (Optional) _________________________________________________

Address (Optional) ___________________________________________________

e-mail address (Optional) ____________________________________________

In answering the following questions you are being asked what is the
MINIMUM an undergraduate and a graduate student needs to know about
computers and computing. Use the number 1 to indicate that all
chemistry students should be REQUIRED to learn about this.
2 = RECOMMENDED. 3 = PERHAPS. 4 = NO
How much should the student learn? A = A LOT. B = SOME. C = A LITTLE.
For example, as an answer to question 1, 2-C for undergraduates would
mean you RECOMMEND that students learn a LITTLE. 1-B for graduate
students would mean you would REQUIRE that graduate students know SOME
(but not a LOT).

For each question, following the line where the above information is
requested you are asked to identify specific software or topics you
would recommend. For example, in answer to 1, you might indicate that
an undergraduates should know PASCAL, but a graduate student needs to
know PASCAL, BASIC and FORTRAN.

In the last column I am asking what PERCENT of your time WHICH YOU
DEVOTE TO COMPUTING IS DEVOTED TO THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY. For
example, in answer to 1, if you indicate 10%, this means that 10% of the
time you devote to computing involves programming in a high level
general purpose programming language.

Undergraduate Graduate You
Student Student %

1. High Level General Purpose
Programming Language _______ _______ ___

Which language(s)? ______________________________________________

2. Spreadsheets _______ _______ ___

Which spreadsheet(s) ___________________________________________

3. Databases _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

4. Numerical methods software _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

5. Statistical methods _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

6. Molecular Modelling _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

7. Plotting _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

8. Graphics _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

9. Operating system(s) _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

10. Utilities Programs _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

11. Electronic mail _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

12. Networks and Networking _______ _______ ___

_________________________________________________________________

13. On-line searching _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

14. Other languages or software _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

15. Computer interfaced instruments _______ _______ ___

Which? __________________________________________________________

16. Computer Hardware _______ _______ ___
and Architecture

Which? __________________________________________________________

17. Interfacing _______ _______ ___

_________________________________________________________________

18. Other computer skills _______ _______ ___
or software

Which? __________________________________________________________

GENERAL QUESTIONS

QUESTION 19
On the average how many hours do you spend on all the above

listed computer activities each week? ______ hours

QUESTION 20
Many universities require chemistry graduate students to exhibit
proficiency in foreign languages by passing an examination or
examinations. Some universities have accepted demonstrated proficiency
in computing or a computing language as fulfilling the requirement for
one foreign language.

Is this desirable? ________

Provide information on the policy of your university
or other universities with respect to this

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Please return this form by JULY 16 to:
Donald Rosenthal (ROSEN2@CLVM.BITNET) and NOT to CHEMCONF.

A summary of responses will be distributed during the General Discussion
between August 16 and August 20.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 10:13:00 EDT
From: ROSEN1
Subject: Paper 5 - Joyce Brockwell's Answers to Short Questions

To: CHEMCONF Participants

For some reason I did not find Joyce Brockwell's Answers to
Short Questions. She sent me a copy and I am forwarding it to CHEMCONF,
since some of you may not have seen the memorandum.

Don Rosenthal

======================================================================

SHORT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AROUND PAPER 5: "IT'S HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME"

I am taking the opportunity to collate the questions which I received and
generalize a few of the replies. This is one of the distinct advantages of
an electronic conference, that and being able to sit down, wear blue jeans
and listen to the radio while I "confer". Well, here goes...

*1* Alan Stolzenberg asked about using mixtures for unknowns in a qual
scheme employing a computer "grading" system. I would anticipate that in
organic chemistry, in the very least, mixtures would present few problems.
A significant part of a student's learning in the organic laboratory is the
process of separating and purifying materials, so that the separation and
purification processes become part of the qualitative analysis. As such,
questions apropos to this would be incorporated into the grading scheme:
"was a separation process attempted?" "what methods were used?:
chromatography, distillation, fractional crystallization, extraction, etc."
"How many components (do you think) were obtained?"... Once the user had
indicated that separation was accomplished in a usable fashion, the
questions about the individual components would follow in due course.

In an inorganic scheme, or even some organic schemes, particularly
employing spectroscopy and only analytical chromatography, questions would
be posed as being applicable to the mixture or the individual components:
"What was the pH of water exposed to the mixture?" "Were the tlc's of the
whole mixture and the mixture after treatment with bicarbonate solution
comparable?"...

*2* Professor Stolzenberg and Mary Swift further ask about the obvious task
demand created by answering the computer's questions, the phenomenon I
termed the "worksheet effect". The particular list of questions (an
electronic worksheet) has the effect of channeling a student's thinking and
performance in the laboratory to the point of their performing
inappropriate tests simply because the program asks about them.

I have attempted by several means to avoid making the strategy for
identifying any particular unknown a "set piece". One means I tried to
indicate in the program design is that succeeding questions would be
triggered by replies to previous questions, i.e. beyond the most basic
processes appropriate for all analyses (bp, mp, solubility, pH), the next
question asked would depend on the answer to the previous one. Inherent in
this scheme would be an algorithm testing for the plausibility of the set
of responses, so that a "manufactured" set of replies would not elicit the
full set of questions. A clever student would likely still be able to dump
out the set of questions, but not without doing some chemistry homework,
and that would teach him/her the chemistry which is the whole point anyway!

In the design of my qual labs, I divided the unknowns into groups that do
not completely overlap in terms of strategy, so that learning on one group
is applicable to the next, but not necessarily sufficient for success. In
fact, in preparation for this conference I used a qual "guess sheet" in the
spring quarter laboratories that was a reformatted list of the questions
from the program. At least in this case, the questions were not a
significant effect in altering the students behavior or success from
previous qual labs. The largest effect on a student's performance is the
interaction with the teaching assistant in the lab which follows from the
students' awareness that the TA is the person giving them their lab grade.
As formulated, this would NOT be altered by use of the machine grader! The
human-computer interaction would not be the largest nor the most crucial to
the student in learning from qualitative analysis--that would remain the
long, active dialog between the students and the TA's and their fellow
students.

Which brings me to Mary Swift's second question, Professor Stolzenberg's third,
and the first related to the program structure: *3*
What can be done to prevent the system being "hacked"? What will prevent a
clever, computer-oriented student from altering the system so that the
computer yields disinformation, both chemical and grading? Happily, the
occurrence of hacking is a sure means of identifying a student who can help
make the program better than it is. As long as there are computers, there
will be hackers, but those people are the ones who can be put to work on
the computer and the program to make both more useful, interesting and
reliable.

In answer to the question, the system (which is what this is) must
necessarily be treated as though it were constantly compromised. At the
start of each qual scheme, the files identifying the students, their id
numbers and the unknowns must be recorded in fixed media--memory which is
physically isolated from the system (back-ups!). In addition, the program
itself must backed up and restored when tampering is suspected. As the qual
labs proceed, frequent automatic redundant back-ups must be made to
minimize the loss of information from alteration of the system. Most
importantly, the electronic record must not be the only record of the
student's work. The laboratory notebooks are the primary source of
information, and a "guess" not documented in the notebook should not be
validated.

While the possibility of altering students' scores in a computer system is
always present, the numbers are less of a concern in my laboratories
because the largest proportion of the grade is assigned on a subjective
basis by the TA ("technique"--one undergraduate TA described this as the
ultimate secret grading method). This has the salutatory effect of making
the TA's pay attention to the students (grades are NOT undocumented), and
lifting the emphasis of getting "the answer", shifting it to "class
participation" (brown-nosing is explicitly discouraged). The whole course
is designed to de-emphasize the grades and re-emphasize the work itself.
Even in the very large classes, I have a significant personal presence
which over the long-term has allowed me to see transient problems in
students' ability to perform, TA's ability to teach or lead or grade,
physical problems with the laboratories, etc. The computer program would be
integrated into this environment, and, unless the hacking were exquisitely
subtle, "what hurts us only makes us stronger".

*4* (isn't it time for new topic?) Platform: I have written programs for
the Macintosh, and my own computer is a Mac. I live in a department which
prefers command-line operating systems, so I know what goes into both. The
design of the tutor as it appears in my paper is sadly very menu-ish, very
like the oldest and ugliest command-line programs. It would become
interesting in the hands of some young programmer who who was raised on MTV
and nurtured by Hollywood. (My theories of programming assign it as a
sublimated urge to wreak havoc among certain segments of our young
population.) As a set of window, tools, objects, devices and images, it
would zip along in a very entertaining mode. My answer: the design is
largely independent of platform, particularly since I suspect it must be
written in a high-level code, C++ being my preference.

At this point, my questions change from inquiries about the nuts and bolts
of the program and its hardware, to the "wetware" questions--pedagogy and
administration.

*5* On to meta-levels: Douglas Coe has inquired of us all about the extent
to which organic qual is required of chemistry majors in our various
schools. At Northwestern, qual is the fourth segment of the lab, the second
half of the second quarter of lab--in a course which is an elective for all
but the chemistry majors, for whom it is a requirement. The laboratory
curriculum is set by my choices, and largely independent of the lecture
course of which it is a part. I keep qual in the curriculum for the reasons
I have stated in the paper: it is a solid, comprehensive review of the
skills which may only be learned in an empirical setting, and it hones the
problem solving skills of the students
(it separates the quick and the dead). The strategy of playing "Betty
Crocker" and using file copies of old laboratories even in discovery labs,
is not effective in a qual lab. I do infinitely prefer writing a
recommendation letter for a student who has elected to take that second
quarter of organic lab, be it for summer jobs, graduate or professional
school, or what have you. We had a faculty member who described the
experience as "character building", and I have to agree.

I have used multi-step experiments; I use discovery labs as a matter of
course, and I encourage constructive collaboration while downgrading the
"two body-one brain" syndrome frequently encountered in labs. I have tried
using assigned "partnerships" in qual itself, but not successfully. The
problems are set a level which is accessible to all of the students and the
means to finding solutions so rich and so abundant that success is not
difficult to find. In this context, I find qualitative analysis to be a
discriminating filter in student performance not found elsewhere, and so I
keep it in the curriculum.

*6* Professor Coe has asked a second general question: how many of us have
expended the time and effort to write a computer program to ease the burden
of some repetitive task, specifically grading a large class? I have engaged
in this (frustrating) activity at two levels: I am an incessant tinkerer
and have tinkered with grading methodology among other things. I use a
spreadsheet now, instead of the BASIC program which I wrote years ago, to
"level" the grades in the lab sections having different TA's. I may have
from 6 to 24 different TA's in one course, necessitating that there be some
consistency in the grading across sections. I do not have an objective
scoring system--I consider it counterproductive for pedagogy, so I need to
minimize the effects of my very subjective grading scheme. This is done in
the usual fashion by finding the "grand mean" (and standard deviation and
recalculating the section means and standard deviations to match.

My second and far more significant foray into programming was the creation
of Beaker. This program was created in demand for some means to have
organic chemistry, commonly (erroneously!) perceived to be a bunch of
memorization, be more easily learned by students with a rigorous
mathematical orientation. The proposal was to have the students themselves
write an electronic page turner. My response was to have them write an
electronic tutor. The result of 3 years of work, some 30,000 lines of C by
two excellent programmers is an expert system which embodies no more than
40% of the original design--at a cost of ~$70,000. It would be nice to have
another go at it, but it would have to be a full-time job. So, yes, I have
put in my time on some keyboards.

*7* And last, but not least, my student clientele. Mary Swift asks about
the "default" chemistry student at NU: the pre-meds, to wit "For the
pre-meds (75% of the class), what is the major objective - development to
critical thinking skills or development of manual dexterity? If it is
critical thinking, how many wet labs are absolutely necessary to permit the
students to get an acceptable level of manual dexterity?" In fact, the
settings of the experiments are simple enough that manual dexterity is not
a deciding factor in assessing performance. Students who have more than
some minimal level of manual dexterity will succeed easily in the labs, and
improve rapidly in those techniques which are repeated in several
experiments (distillations, tlc, melting points, etc.). Students lacking
manual dexterity tend to turn in a poor performance in other areas as well:
observations, record keeping and interpretation. This is particularly
evident in those experiments where the students are paired up and may thus
compensate for a weak performer on technique by having the more dextrous
partner perform the work. Too often, the weak partner is still not able to
draw conclusions from the experimental observations.

My chief objective in the organic laboratories is to give the students a
real appreciation for the empirical nature of science.: to have them learn
that an experiment is the physical equivalent of a question; that the
observations made during the process are essential; that interpretation of
the outcome of an experiment is not "did it work" but "what did you see?"
and that learning is engaged most strongly where the learner engages the
experimental process. Students who distance themselves from the labs
because "they don't count" may fail even though their academic record is
strong, while weaker students who do "engage" may succeed in the labs. The
engagement develops critical thinking as one of a constellation of
critically useful skills, among them thinking in "real time", and problem
solving on a very practical plane. How many labs are required? Lab improves
with practice, so more is better in my opinion. I would hesitate to trust
the skill of a student who worked through fewer than a dozen elementary
laboratory experiments: in two quarters, my students are required to carry
out 18 experiments.

*8* Mary Swift further inquires: "How many of the pre-meds obtain admission
to medical school?" and "While one must acknowledge the goals of the
student, would it not be better to emphasize that there are many careers,
including medicine, that require the use of problem solving skills?"

The historical placement rate of pre-meds from Northwestern exceeds 90%
(more than 250 per year); among chemistry majors, the rate is not
significantly different from 100%. And yes, throughout their career in the
service courses in the chemistry department at NU, the students, be they
science majors (chemistry, biology, geology, integrated science program,
speech pathology, etc.), engineers or pre-professionals are immersed in an
atmosphere where problem-solving at all levels, explicit and implicit, is
key to success in their course work and subsequently in their careers.
From: jbrockwe@vmspop.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Paper 5 answers to short Q's
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 09:14:06 +1000
From: Adrian Blackman
Subject: Re: Paper 5 and TORGANAL

>I don't find torganal as torg310.zip at any of the three sites you suggest.
>Any ideas?
>
>Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
>Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
>University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
>Lexington, KY 40506

The most recent version of the Torganal program is TORG311.ZIP, dated 29
Mar, 1993. It is available from simtel20 and oakland and various other
sites which mirror these e.g.

rigel.acs.oakland.edu
location /pub/msdos/chemistry

ftp.uu.net
location /systems/ibmpc/msdos/simtel20/chemistry

src.doc.ic.ac.uk
location /computing/systems/wsmr-simtel20.army.mil/chemistry

archie.au
location /micros/pc/oak/chemistry

Adrian Blackman Email: Adrian.Blackman@chem.utas.edu.au
Chemistry Department
University of Tasmania
Hobart, Tasmania
Australia

=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 10:29:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 6 - Short Question

PAPER 6 - Short Question

INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER-GENERATED GRAPHICAL PROBLEM SETS

Frank M. Lanzafame, Monroe Community College, Chemistry Dept.,
1000 East Henrietta Rd., Rochester, NY 14623
Internet: FLANZAFAME@ECKERT.ACADCOMP.MONROECC.EDU

In Section VI
> B. Generation of Statistical Fluctuations about a Value:

> The program uses a function called ErrFactor (relative standard
> deviation). This function returns a statistically generated
> multiplier with a mean value of 1.00 and a standard deviation
> given by the relative standard deviation specified. For
> example, if it is desired to apply a 5 percent fluctuation to a
> given value, the function called is ErrFactor (0.05). The
> function returns a randomly generated value of 1.00 +/- 0.05
> which is applied as a multiplier to the value one wishes to
> randomize. Thus a multiplier between 0.95 and 1.05 is generated
> approximately 2 of 3 times. Since this follows a normal
> distribution, occasionally one finds the 2 or 3 or 4 sigma
> variation. This produces fluctuations with points which are
> outside the limit (here 5 %) about 1 of 3 times.

* In normal unweighted least squares calculations it is implicitly
* assumed:
*
* 1. There is no error in X values, only in Y values.
* 2. There is equal probability (0.5) of finding positive and negative
* deviations from the true value of Y.
* 3. The error in the value of Y is normally distributed (i.e. larger
errors are less probable than smaller errors).
* 4. The magnitude of the error in Y is independent of the value of X.
*
* QUESTION: Does your program generate errors which conform to
* conditions 3 and 4?
*
* If the program multiplies the true value by a factor,
* the error depends upon the value of X.
*
* There are algorithms which will generate normally
* distributed errors which conform to condition 4.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 10:33:59 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper 6 short questions - figures

I have gotten the binary files from simon fraser university as suggested (I
think) I have pgen11zp.exe, and an executable to unzip itself is the proper way
to distribute zipped files. My question is where are the three figures
referred to? Using GET PAPER6 FIGURE3 with LISTSERV doesn't work.

sincerely
Reed Howald

=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 08:13:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 7 - Short Questions

Paper 7

INTEGRATING COMPUTERS INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASSROOM

William J. Sondgerath, Chemistry Teacher, Harrison High,
West Lafayette, Indiana (BSONDGER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU)

Short questions on this paper: July 6, 1993

QUESTIONS: How would your course with integrated appear from the
perspective of a student or a teacher?

1. Is there a course text? Do most students read the book?

2. Do you lecture and provide time for class discussion and
problem working sessions?

3. Are computers integrated into the class hours or do students use
the computers during study hall hours and after school?

4. On the average what fraction of the course is devoted to each type
of activity? What about traditional laboratory work?

5. Computer activities must replace other activities. Which are the
activities replaced?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 16:32:25 EET
From: Mirja Karjalainen
Subject: Paper7 short questions

Paper 7, short questions:

I. How did you select the classes for CAI? Should the students
have any prior computer skills?

IX. I'm not familiar with the Safety in Science Lab software. Is it
designed specially for the high school science education? How
much does it contain data about properties of chemicals?
Could I get some further information about it (a demo?) through
the Internet?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 09:59:06 EDT
From: "R. T. Wilson"
Subject: Paper7 by William J. Sondergrath

It sounds like you are doing a great job of bringing your students into
productive contact with computers in a variety of ways. I have a few
logistical questions:
1. How many students are in your typical lab, and how long are the lab
periods?
2. How much time does a typical student require to finish an experiment and
report which requires word-processing or a spreadsheet? Do they usually finish
the report during the lab period, or do they have to do it later in the media
center?
3. You say:

Subject: short questions paper 6

I am concerned about the question Lanzaframe raises, how do we give our
students more experience with graphing?
I would hope integrating computers into courses can spped up certain processes,
including data collection and graphing. My question is - Do you find that
using computers gives your students more experience with graphing, or do you
have a net loss of time to spend on fundamentals like graphing?

sincerely
Reed Howald

=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 09:50:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 8 - Short Questions

PAPER 8 - Short Questions

USING THE AIRWAVES: A SATELLITE M.S. FOR INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTS.
K.J. Schray, N.D. Heindel, J.E. Brown. and M.A. Kercsmar. Department
of Chemistry and Office of Distance Education, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015 (KJS0@Lehigh.edu)

QUESTIONS

1. Will you elaborate more on the format of these courses.

a. How many times does a given course meet each week - and how long
is each class meeting?

b. How much class time is devoted to lecture in the "average course"
and how much time is devoted to discussion and in-class problem
solving? How much assigned homework is there? Do most of these
graduate courses have a textbook and reading assignments? Since
classes can be videotaped, there should be a good opportunity for
analysis of how class time is utilized.

c. If a student has a question and is on-site, hopefully he would
raise his hand and be recognized. How do you handle off-site
participants? - Do they just yell out?

d. What fraction of the total number of students in the "average
course" are off-site?

e. How do student course evaluations compare when the same course
is given by the same instructor in regular and satellite mode?
How do on-site students react to the somewhat different format
of this course? Are there significant differences between
evaluations received fron on-site and off-site students?

2. Lehigh has opted to teach its courses synchronously rather than
asynchronously. There are some advantages to this choice, but there
are also distinct disadvantages. You allude to the scheduled time
being a problem - particularly for students in different time zones.
You indicate that back-up videotaping is used. Such tapes would be
quite satisfactory for lectures and off-site students would be able
to hear (and see) the discussion of on-site students. THIS conference
is being held asynchronously. Participants have an opportunity to ask
questions which authors (and other participants) answer at scheduled
times. What would you think of a format involving taped classes (for
off-site students), asynchronous questions, and a few synchronous
discussion sessions (which could be taped and viewed asynchronously)?
It seems to me you have an opportunity to experiment with somewhat
different formats.

3. Is electronic mail being used at all? This could be a useful
communication tool in research and courses. For example, see
Linda M. Harasim (editor), "ONLINE EDUCATION: Perspectives on
a New Environment",Praeger, New York, 1990.
Have you considered the use of a LISTSERV with access controlled
by the manager? (LISTSERV is being used to run this conference.)

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13676
ROSEN@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 13:34:26 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper8 questions

1. Would you provide a reference for the 15000 to 6000 drop
in BS chemists and 80% to 20% drop in those intending to do
graduate work?

2. Could you provide some data for the numbers of non chemists
entering positions in industry requiring a chemistry degree?

3. I would be interested in obtaining a course syllabus for the
"bridge" physical Chemistry course.

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University
Niagara University NY 14109
Roszieli@ubvms
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 15:29:13 -0500
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 8 - Short Questions

to follow up on Donald Rosenthal's question concerning the use of E-mail
in the off-site courses, 1)do you think that it may be possible to teach
these courses without the standard lecture format, using perhaps
interactive computer worksheets( produced using mathematica). This would
Eliminate the need for the expensive satelite uplink, and video production
help could be given via EMAIL. On site students could take the lectureless
courses as well.

2) what type of research projects are most common among your students?
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 17:46:57 -0600
From: "Douglas A. Coe"
Subject: Short Questions for Paper 8

I have three questions:

1. Lehigh's course numbering system seems to be non-standard. Can
you briefly explain it?

2. Does Lehigh have master's programs that emphasize physical,
inorganic, or other areas of chemistry, but which are not
offered as satellite courses? If you do, are there plans to
offer these as satellite courses?

3. What are the prerequisites for the courses listed in Table II.

Doug Coe
Montana Tech
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 05:35:15 CDT
From: Charles Fox
Subject: QUESTIONS-PAPER 8

I am interested in finding what the cost per hour or per course is for
your MS/Chemistry via the air waves and how it compares to your normal
coursework?
Thanks,
cfox@saunix.sau.edu
Instructor
St.Ambrose University
518 W. Locust St.
Davenport, IA 52803
voice 319-383-8921
fax 319-383-8791
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:48:44 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Files for Papers 6 and 11 now complete on LISTSERV

Dear CHEMCONFers:
The figures for Paper 6 are now available on the LISTSERV database:

PAPER6 TEXT
PAPER6 FIGURE1
PAPER6 FIGURE2
PAPER6 FIGURE3

Paper 11 and its related files is now available on the LISTSERV database:

PAPER11 TEXT
PAPER11 BATCH
PAPER11 EMAIL
PAPER11 EXTRCR
PAPER11 HINTS
PAPER11 HWK
PAPER11 MENU
PAPER11 NOTES
PAPER11 SYLABUS
PAPER11 WRDLIST

The meaning of these files is described in the paper itself, PAPER11 TEXT.

Tom O'Haver
CHEMCONF

=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:59:28 -0500
From: "Steven G. O'Neal"
Subject: Short Questions Paper 9

> But the need for training at a time of great transition is enormous. ....
> Our employers, Federal and state agencies, foundations, and others must help
> us find the time and money.

I agree wholeheartedly! Many of us are also still struggling to find
resources to obtain the necessary equipment and software. Would the members
of the conference be willing to share successful strategies and sources
toward gaining this important goal?

Our community (Norman, OK) has created a foundation for competetive grants
to acquire some materials or training, but the maximum amounts available
($1,000) are insufficient for computers, monitors, printers, etc.

Any thoughts here would be welcome.

Steven G. O'Neal, Ph.D.
Norman Public Schools
Steven G. O'Neal, Ph.D.
1220 Crossroads Court
Norman, OK 73072
soneil@ncsa.uiuc.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:58:47 -0500
From: Carolyn Sweeney Judd
Subject: Re: Short Questions for Paper 9
In-Reply-To: <9307072346.AA07463@umd5.umd.edu>

Great food for thought found in your paper! Can you elaborate on the
following excerpt from your paper:
> The currently available
>programs, the successors to those distributed on the
>ChemSource CD-ROMs, will check your chemistry at that level.
What are these successors?

Carolyn S. Judd
Central College, Houston Community College System
1300 Holman Houston TX 77004
713-630-1103 cjudd@tenet.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:49:24 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Paper 7 viewing SOND*.PIC files

I have been unable to view the figures with Paper 7 using VPIC ver. 5.0
This viewer has worked with all GIF files for all other papers. The
program indicates the files are not valid PIC files. I have used binary to
FTP the files.

Has anyone else had similar problems, or success in viewing (and with what
viewer on a PC)?

Thanks in advance.

Frank Lanzafame

flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:47:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 9 - Short Questions

PAPER 9 - Short Questions

Staff Development is the Biggest Cost in Computing:
Ask For Released Time!

David W. Brooks, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska 68588-0355 E-mail: dbrooks@unlinfo.unl.edu

In this paper you make a number of interesting comments

> We have to begin with ourselves, not
> our students. .... Are we well enough prepared?
> The answer is almost certainly, 'no.'

> Ask for released time.

> How little training can one have and still be an
> effective tool user?

QUESTION 1

In your paper you mention - CAI, grading, word processing,
spreadsheets, being aware of software that is available, etc.

a. What do TEACHERS need to know?

b. Suppose a teacher has had an
introductory programming course, (s)he knows how to turn on a
computer and load software. What should (s)he be taught in a
one semester course entitled "Computers for Chemical Educators"?

---------------------------------------------------------------

> Time spent in having students acquire skills that pit them
> against the software now available is wasted time. There
> are drill and practice program that really help to build
> skills in certain areas -- gas law problems, mole problems,
> assigning oxidation numbers, naming compounds and writing
> formulas, etc. The existence of these programs is prima
> facie evidence that the skill probably is not a worthy skill
> to teach!

QUESTION 2

If STUDENTS are not to use the software which is now available -
spreadsheets, word processors and existing CAI, what should they
be doing?

QUESTION 3

a. Are you saying that students don't really need to know how to
solve gas law problems, mole problems, naming compounds and
writing formulas, because we have computers that can do this
for us? If we really understand something, we should be able
to use our knowledge and apply it (to solving problems).

b. Should children be taught to add, subtract, multiply and divide?
After all,we have calculators which can do this for us.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:01:24 EST
From: "William J. Sondgerath"
Subject: Re: Paper 7 viewing SOND*.PIC files
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu,
8 Jul 1993 09:49:24 EDT from

I apologize for not having a way to view pic.files. I tried to get help
from Purdue University to convert to gif. The only way that I know you
could view would be to have access to storyboard plus from IBM or simply
the file called storyboard driver. Sorry about inconvenience.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 10:24:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 7 viewing SOND*.PIC files
In-Reply-To: <9307081343.AA09625@umd5.umd.edu>

I was also unable to view these files. There are evidently some
sort of special non-standard format, dispite the standard extension.
The author does not know how to convert these to a standard
format and I do not have access to the (commercial) software
that generated the figures in the first place. I think we're
stuck in this case.

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:23:50 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: short questions paper 9

>ask for released time
>Yes, that includes art teachers, music teachers, and . . .

This is a challenging paper.

But we can't all get years of released time.

Is it possible to devise computer assisted instruction that would show a music
teacher how to use computers in his or her daily classroom use in two or three
hours total time?

Do we need to concentrate on software for his or her students instead?

What will happen when students exposed to this training get to our freshman
chemistry classes 5 to 20 years from now?

Sincerely,
Reed Howald
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 12:18:56 EST
From: Larry Wier
Organization: Saint Bonaventure University
Subject: Paper 9 - Short Questions

As pointed out by Dr.Brooks, the "hidden" cost of and need for
training are both extremely large. Does anyone have strategies for
convincing administrators of this? How does one get that release
time? Also, how does one convince others that such training is
a worthwhile use of one's time? (It probably does not qualify as
"research" in the eyes of many.)

Larry Wier
==============================
Dr Larry Wier
Dept of Chemistry
St Bonaventure University
St Bonaventure, N.Y. 14778
(716)375-2116
INTERNET:lwier@sbu.edu
==============================
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 13:10:42 -0400
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster

Is PIC the same as PICT?

If so then use picttopbm then pbmtorast then rasttoppm & ppmtogif or ppmtops
OR if you have a laserjet picttopbm then pbmtolj

Get the pbmplus family of format converters from ftp.uu.net

An archie search came up with a lot of hits (68)for /pic especially in
connection with groff and 386-bsd/unix -- e.g.
/systems/unix/bsd-sources/usr.bin/groff/pic on ftp.uu.net

This (groff) is apparently gnu-ware so I would look in the gnu archives
for pic manipulation programs (since apparently groff makes pic files which
must eventually be printed!).

Mike Whitbeck
whitbeck@maxey.unr.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 12:42:43 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Short Questions
In-Reply-To: <01H0ALJD1YJ4002QS6@crcvms.unl.edu> from "Donald Rosenthal" at
Jul 8, 93 09:47:00 am

Responses to Don's short questions:
Citations from my text labeled as >>
Copies of his question material labeled as ??

?? In this paper you make a number of interesting comments

>> We have to begin with ourselves, not
>> our students. .... Are we well enough prepared?
>> The answer is almost certainly, 'no.'

>> Ask for released time.

>> How little training can one have and still be an
>> effective tool user?
?? In your paper you mention - CAI, grading, word processing,
?? spreadsheets, being aware of software that is available,
?? etc.

?? a. What do TEACHERS need to know?

Teachers need to KNOW that machines will DO most of the
"intellectual" work that well-trained professionals once did.
Knowing that is much more than being able to spout it back --
it means having a sort of knee-jerk reaction to a problem in
which the teacher turns first to a computer for assistance,
guidance, and perhaps solutions.

Teachers need to KNOW that the tools used in a task change the
nature of the task -- even when the task is "thinking."

?? b. Suppose a teacher has had an
?? introductory programming course, (s)he knows how to turn
?? on a computer and load software. What should (s)he be
?? taught in a one semester course entitled "Computers for
?? Chemical Educators"?

This is THE most important practical question. Even if we
don't know where we are headed, it makes no sense to do
(teach) nothing until 'things settle down.' It is agreed that
we will teach something.

Interfacing experiments and automating the process of
collecting data is important.

Widespread use of a very large variety of software packages is
the best kind of introduction we can make. My best guess is
to focus on achieving outcomes rather than worrying either
about creating or understanding deeply the software leading to
those outcomes. In other words, I would be much more
interested in having students use a prepared worksheet
(template) for stoichiometry than in creating all of the cell
formulas that perform stoichiometry calculations for them.

Many years back, a group at UCLA made a step in this direction
by publishing a book in which spreadsheets formulae were given
to handle essentially all of the computations used in an
introductory biochemistry course for majors. I would cite the
book, but it disappeared from my bookshelf. Sandra Lamb at
UCLA chemistry was involved. She has a very good sense of
'the possible' with respect to instructional computing in
chemistry.

The Beaker program created by an author at this conference has
numerous features to help one think. It was her program that
cemented an idea for me two years ago. After seeing a half-
dozen exhibitors demonstrate powerful molecular structure
programs, I sat down during a symposium session and heard a
speaker discuss the teaching of nomenclature using CAI. The
punch line was meta-nitroanisole. From the molecular
structure programs, it was clear that one could create meta-
nitroanisole on a computer screen. One might not know if that
substance had a history or even what it might be named, but
just know that it was a good molecule to accomplish a
particular task -- say binding to a protein. It was clear to
me that some day one could 'circle' in the computer sense of
that word any structure drawn on the screen and get back not
only its name but a raft of information about the substance.
The first structure I created with Beaker was -- you guessed
it! It doesn't give that name back. I bet you can guess the
name it does give back!! If you follow my suggestion, your
students will never know of meta-nitroanisole unless they look
up alternative names in a database or enter that name into a
machine! The remarkable thing to me was that Beaker already
existed and was available when the thought first occurred to
me -- ignorance impeded my thinking. The world already was
where I thought it might one day be.

Using software tools changes how we think. That usage changes
which tasks we think are important. That usage changes how we
undertake tasks.

------------------------------------------------------------

I WANT TO ANSWER DON'S QUESTIONS OUT OF ORDER

>> Time spent in having students acquire skills that pit them
>> against the software now available is wasted time. There
>> are drill and practice program that really help to build
>> skills in certain areas -- gas law problems, mole problems,
>> assigning oxidation numbers, naming compounds and writing
>> formulas, etc. The existence of these programs is prima
>> facie evidence that the skill probably is not a worthy
>> skill to teach!

I'M MOVING AHEAD TO QUESTION 3B .

?? QUESTION 3

?? b. Should children be taught to add, subtract, multiply and
?? divide? After all, we have calculators which can do this
?? for us.

Children today are not taught to multiply and divide in the
same way that I was taught. They are taught to use machines
(calculators). Both of my children (ages 23 and 21) would
never think of doing arithmetic by head and hand. They use
head and machine. One of them is at least as good a
mathematician as I ever was, and the other is so much better
that it makes my head spin. The time that I spent learning
skills she has spent in learning more and more powerful
mathematical concepts. Machines perform the skills for her.

Are the children of today better (or worse) than I am or -- if
you're past 35, you are? Who knows? They certainly are
different.

Finally, for reasons that are well understood, unused skills
wane. My mental arithmetic skills are not only much poorer
than they used to be, they are much poorer than they were 10
years ago when I taught general chemistry. There was a sharp
number sense that came with head and hand skills that, for me
at least, does not seem necessary for head and machine tasks.

In summary, machines make the thinking process different and,
therefore, make the people using them different.

There are very real limits to this. All of us would be
"better" if we knew al of the knowledge available in our
libraries. The existence of knowledge in the world does not
in and of itself enhance problem solving.

If an internist is always looking up potassium, then my guess
is that many of her/his patients die "out of balance." There
are some things one needs to know. To use Donald Norman's
jargon, there is some knowledge we need to "have in our head"
and not just "in the world."

I have little respect for colleagues immersed in a complex
task who say 'there's software to do that' but have no idea of
the software, what it does, or what it means. A professional
knows what the software does at more than a glib, cocktail
party level.

QUESTION 2

?? If STUDENTS are not to use the software which is now
?? available - spreadsheets, word processors and existing CAI,
?? what should they be doing?

Interfacing experiments makes a great deal of sense to teach.

There is no problem in teaching (rather in requiring the use
of) a modern word processor. It doesn't write for you -- it
helps you to write. More important, it handles the technical
aspects of writing. Creating new, clear thoughts is still the
task of the writer and not the software. Writing with LATEX
is something you do when you don't own or can't access a good
$1K machine with $200 worth of software. (Yes, that was a
shot.)

Spreadsheets are a different matter. For spreadsheets, there
are opportunities for:

a. creating cell formulae
b. entering data into templates

It is a general sense that most work today focuses on the
former. My sense is that not only is the latter OK, it's good
-- something to be preferred instead of disdained.

Sorry, I don't use a hand calculator to check the arithmetic
outputted from MacInTax.

Analyzing data with graphics programs makes sense. Creating
problem sets where different analyses give different results
also makes sense. Using different approaches within software
packages is probably the best way to teach data analysis that
we have available today.

CAI is an entirely different matter. If the CAI is drill and
practice oriented -- say aimed at making the student a better
balancer of chemical equations -- then the time is mostly
wasted. Wasted! The kind of CAI that makes the most sense is
the stuff that comes with the software package teaching you
how to use that package.

So far, the considerable time I have spent learning to use
Internet has not paid off. Phones and fax machines are still
ahead. Internet is catching up.

?? QUESTION 3

?? a. Are you saying that students don't really need to know
?? how to solve gas law problems, mole problems, naming
?? compounds and writing formulas, because we have computers
?? that can do this for us? If we really understand
?? something, we should be able to use our knowledge and apply
?? it (to solving problems).

?? b. Should children be taught to add, subtract, multiply and
?? divide? After all, we have calculators which can do this
?? for us.

Understanding is a word with the kind of definition that
amounts to no definition. Here is an official definition of
"understand":

(Webster's Unabridged)

"to apprehend or comprehend; to know or grasp the meaning,
import, intention, or motive of; to perceive or discern the
meaning of; as, to UNDERSTAND a problem, an argument, an
oracle, a secret sign, indistinct speech, etc."

What does it mean to UNDERSTAND a mole problem? Two ideas
underpin mole problems: conservation of atoms, and (almost)
constant mass of atoms.

At one level, a person can parrot that back. At another
level, they can know that these two ideas imply that a set of
mathematical relationships can be written to express the
ideas. At a quite different level, one can transform those
ideas into mathematical rules, and take a set of numbers (or
data) to predict other numbers. Creating spreadsheet formulae
amounts to one step beyond the latter.

A prepared spreadsheet (a template) can do ALL of the
crunching for a general chemistry student.

A question that remains is "what must a teacher do to enable
the learner be able to use the spreadsheet template
appropriately." That is, how much head and calculator instead
of head and spreadsheet work is appropriate in order to make
use of the template effectively? The answer lies somewhere
between solving no stoichiometry problems at all and solving
any stoichiometry problem that the spreadsheet might be
capable of solving. I suspect the equilibrium position lies
to the left, toward the no crunching side. Understanding
certainly does not include writing cell formulas -- that is
not chemistry, even though ever chemist respects it and knows
that it takes a very competent chemist to do it or to team
with someone who does it.

On the other hand, if a spreadsheet is a tool for chemists and
you want to be creative, then you need to be able to write
cell formulae or otherwise instruct a spreadsheet. Even
though writing spreadsheet templates is not a chemist's
business, it is probably something most chemists ultimately
want to know. It is hard to say how long that skill will be
important, but one suspects that it is not long lived.

How to design a balance of approaches and topics in teaching
chemistry remains an unanswered question. Teachers who spend
much of their time on crunching as was spent ten years ago
clearly are on the wrong path. That is too much time to spend
on head and calculator crunching. I doubt, however, that I
successfully can cover conservation of atoms and conservation
of mass in just one lecture period. The message can be
transmitted in seconds, but it takes days to receive. The
ideas must be tied to other ideas within the student in order
for reception to occur.

I admit to having used some functions from Mathematica to
crunch for me that I have no idea either what they did or how
they did it. The result was judged on the basis of chemical
sense -- not mathematical sense. Black boxes used to be very
scary. The more one uses them, the less scary they are.

THE MAIN THEME OF THIS PAPER IS THAT CHEMISTRY TEACHERS NEED
TO SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME LEARNING ABOUT WHAT MODERN TOOLS
WILL DO FOR THEM AS INTELLECTUAL PARTNERS. IF YOU KNOW WHAT
THEY CAN DO, YOU HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT TO TEACH ABOUT
USING THEM. MANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FIRST PHASE OF
THIS CONFERENCE SUPPORT THAT NOTION!
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 12:48:01 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: Short Questions for Paper 9
In-Reply-To: <01H0AJRMYKEO002BT3@crcvms.unl.edu> from "Carolyn Sweeney Judd"
at Jul 8, 93 07:58:47 am

>
> Great food for thought found in your paper! Can you elaborate on the
> following excerpt from your paper:
> > The currently available
> >programs, the successors to those distributed on the
> >ChemSource CD-ROMs, will check your chemistry at that level.
> What are these successors?
>
> Carolyn S. Judd
> Central College, Houston Community College System
> 1300 Holman Houston TX 77004
> 713-630-1103 cjudd@tenet.edu
>
When it is born, ChemSource is going to be one of the largest,
heaviest babies ever. It is many months overdue.

Connected with ChemSource are two other tools -- Chemistry Lesson
Planning and Chemistry Laboratory Assistant. The CLA tool has the
abilit to create and modify recipes for preparing solution and
chemicals used by students.

Look for CehmSource in December, 1993.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 14:48:00 CDT
From: "J.J. Lagowski"
Subject: paper 5 late

The discussions concerning SQUALOR and inorganic qualitative analysis seem to
suggest that these laboratory activities are supposed to reflect the way
"real chemists" do analysis. The other point of view is that they represent
an interesting way to learn some descriptive chemistry (which everyone agrees
as dead boring) and it has nothing to do with what "real chemists" do, rather
it is a way of learning what "real chemists" know.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 17:17:24 -0500
From: John Woolcock
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Short Questions

>Many years back, a group at UCLA made a step in this direction
>by publishing a book in which spreadsheets formulae were given
>to handle essentially all of the computations used in an
>introductory biochemistry course for majors. I would cite the
>book, but it disappeared from my bookshelf.

The book you remember is entitled "Dynamic Models in Biochemistry" by Atkinson,
Clarke and Rees. There are two others: "Dynamic Models in Chemistry" and
"Dynamic Models in Physics". Available from N. Simonson & Co., Marina del Rey,
CA Telephone: (213) 301-2847. These come with disks for Mac or PC which contain
the spreadsheet templates. The text has tutorials on how students can create
their own templates including the cell formulas for stoichiometry, kinetics,
etc.

However, we tend to only ask our students to do what we have already done
ourselves. I will never use this in my courses until I have gone through it
myself. This takes time that I don't have so it has been sitting on my shelf
for 2 years! You are absolutely correct that one of the biggest impediments to
the implementation of any teaching strategy is finding "faculty development
time" to learn to use it.

John Woolcock
Chemistry Department
Indiana University of PA
WOOLCOCK@grove.iup.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 00:17:28 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper9 - questions

Questions:

1. Some of us have considerable investments in IBM PC type
machines and can't or won't switch especially since windows
makes work so easy. Is there a software package for the PC
market that is equivalent to HyperCard?

2. We who are participating in this conference have various
levels of computer skills. I doubt that I could write a
tutorial program for student use without spending allot of time
and energy. Nevertheless I firmly believe that computers
should be used extensively in undergraduate instruction. I
know that I am not alone but sometimes I feel isolated when I
hear colleagues remark that the only way a student learns about
graphing is with a pencil and paper. How do we effectively get
the message out that more can be learned by using a computer
effectively? I think that there is a need to see more articles
in J.Chem Ed. on this subject. Especially one on developing
the idea of using computers as tools for learning and drill.

3. What does one do with/to colleagues who refuse to use
software even when it is available? Part of the problem is, as
you pointed out, that there is a steep learning curve for the
novice and there are many novice chemistry faculty out there,
those who can't or won't even learn word processing. Another
part is that there is a tradition of poor quality CAI programs
from the past that has left a bad impression on established
teachers. There just doesn't seem to be enough experience at
the grass roots level to make a significant difference yet.
Perhaps a critical mass of interested faculty needs to be
developed before substantial change can occur.

4. Another problem that I see as inhibiting the spread of
computer usage is the poor reception given to development of
learning tools and innovative curricula when evaluating a young
faculty member for promotion or tenure. There is a need to
recognize that research into and development of CAI software is
an appropriate activity for faculty. If I do pedagogical
research then it is OK because I'm a woman or because I teach
at a small school and there isn't much else to do. If I do
research in QM or MD or Modeling then it's just theory and who
believes that anyway.
It's a no win situation with many students feeling that they
are incapable of participating. How can we present our
computer expertise especially to novice students so that they
do not feel intimidated by it all and go off to study history
or criminal justice?

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University
Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
Roszieli@UBVMS
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 07:05:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Paper 9 : Short Questions

James Kaput uses the term "cognative technology" to label those
constructed tools and technologies that help us think and communicate
better that we could without them. The most important of those
historically are probably writing, arabic numerals, printing, symbolic
notation, and now, perhaps, computers. These technologies are
empowering; for example, any child using arabic numerals today can
perform arithemitic tasks that a senator of ancient Rome could not. Do
you feel that the computer will eventually, say in 10 or 20 years,
develop into a cognative technology at that level of importance? Consider
how we build writing and mathematics into our education systems
continuously from day one. Will we someday grow up with computers as we
all grow up with mathematics? To some extent it is already happening in
some school systems, where 5-6 graders are doing most of their "serious"
writing on computers. (Kids pick this sort of thing up much faster than
adults and teachers). In 5 years these kids will be in high school and in
10 years in college. What must we do to prepare for them?

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland

=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:13:43 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper10 questions

Questions Paper 10

1. How much math and pchem (courses/semester hours) do the
students take prior to this course?

2. What windows development tool is used to develop hyperbook?
(Boy would I like to work on a pchem HyperBook project)

3. I would like to have an english copy of the course topics
for the pchem course(s) that is(are) prerequisite to this
course.

4. I am currently writing up a Mathcad exercise for item B1 of
your paper. It should be ready by mid August. My students
enjoy working this way to learn. they learn more and they
learn more deeply.

5. I think that my students would enjoy the oscillating
kinetics experiment. Would you pass on one or two english
references to get me started.

6. What is the source of data for figures 8, 9, & 10.

7. For figure 11, can students rotate and view it from
different angles. Diagrams of this type are very useful
pedagogically. Where does one get a copy of SURFER?

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Chemistry Department
Niagara University
Niagara University NY 14109

Roszieli@ubvms
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 11:56:58 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: Paper 9 : Short Questions
In-Reply-To: <01H0BV0O7RTS002Q7Z@crcvms.unl.edu> from "to2" at Jul 9,
93 07:05:00 am

Try reading "Cognitive Artifacts" by Donald Norman in
Designing Interaction, J. M. Carroll, ed., Cambridge,
Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-40921-7 pbk, 1991, pp. 17-38.

>> Do you feel that the computer will eventually, say in 10
>> or 20 years, develop into a cognative technology at that
>> level of importance?

The time scale is off. In our world, it already has. When
I came to Nebraska, it was because they would support TA
training using video. Video was too big a deal for the
place I left in 1973. Hard to imagine, isn't it. Early on
during the intervening 20 years, the rate of home sales of
player recorders reached 1 million units per month.

>> Will we someday grow up with computers as we all grow up
>> with mathematics?

Yes.

>> What must we do to prepare for them?

Bring ourselves up to speed first. Ask for a leave!
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 11:58:26 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: paper9 - questions
In-Reply-To: <01H0BHCZWZDU002ML0@crcvms.unl.edu> from "theresa Julia
Zielinski" at Jul 9, 93 00:17:28 am

>>Is there a software package for the PC market that is
>> equivalent to HyperCard?

1. Toolbook by Asymmetrix PO Box 40419, Bellevue WA 206-
637-1600 is the best. There are two that advertise cross
platform features. Plus has been around for several years.
Windowcraft just came out.

>> How do we effectively get the message out that more can
>> be learned by using a computer effectively? I think that
>> there is a need to see more articles in J. Chem Ed. on
>> this subject. Especially one on developing the idea of
>> using computers as tools for learning and drill.

2. Most CAI is designed to pit students against machines --
to impart the machine's skill to the student. Poor strategy
-- the learners always lose. (When they are recognizing
pictures, they may operate at 100 MIPS, but when they're
solving mole problems, they can't.) The computer is my
friend; it is my main tool. Teach me how to use the tool.

>> What does one do with/to colleagues who refuse to use
>> software even when it is available?

3. Worry about ourselves; let someone else worry about our
colleagues.

>>..the poor reception given to development of learning
>> tools and innovative curricula when evaluating a young
>> faculty member for promotion or tenure.

4.. There are several avenues to publication that can be
counted just the same as tradition work. J. Chem. Educ.
software is one. There are 10-15 reviewed publications put
out by the ISTE (International Society for Technology in
Education), 800-336-5191. Finally, traditional publications
such as J. Chem. Educ., J. Research in Sci. Tchg, J. Coll.
Sci. Tchg., etc., regularly publish contributions of this
nature.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 10:10:53 PDT
From: David Green
Subject: Re: spreadsheets
In-Reply-To: ; from "John Woolcock" at Jul 8, 93 5:17 pm

>
> >Many years back, a group at UCLA made a step in this direction
> >by publishing a book in which spreadsheets formulae were given
> >to handle essentially all of the computations used in an
> >introductory biochemistry course for majors. I would cite the
> >book, but it disappeared from my bookshelf.
>
> The book you remember is entitled "Dynamic Models in Biochemistry" by Atkinson
> Clarke and Rees. There are two others: "Dynamic Models in Chemistry" and
> "Dynamic Models in Physics". Available from N. Simonson & Co., Marina del Rey,
> CA Telephone: (213) 301-2847. These come with disks for Mac or PC which contai
> the spreadsheet templates. The text has tutorials on how students can create
> their own templates including the cell formulas for stoichiometry, kinetics,
> etc.
>
>
> John Woolcock
> Chemistry Department
> Indiana University of PA
> WOOLCOCK@grove.iup.edu
>

Another book with spreadsheet templates that I have used a few from is

"Concepts and Calculations in Analytical Chemistry, a Spreadsheet Approach",
by Henry Freiser, CRC press. It covers stoich, equilibrium, activity, and
other things. The sheets are written for QPro for DOS but are very easily
converted to 1-2-3, Excel, and QPro for Windows. The student will need to
have a little prowess on the spreadsheet to do the problems.

David Green
Natural Science Division
Pepperdine University
Malibu CA

dgreen@pepvax.bitnet
dgreen@pepvax.pepperdine.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 14:11:00 EDT
From: "Peter Gold, Penn State U. (814) 865-7694"
Subject: Re: spreadsheets
In-Reply-To: DGREEN AT PEPVAX.BITNET -- Fri, 9 Jul 1993 10:10:53 PDT

Yet another book on using spreadsheets to solve chemistry problems is
O. J. Parker and Gary L. Breneman, "Spreadsheet Chemistry" (Prentice-Hall,
1991).
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 11:43:02 -0700
From: Sandra Lamb
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Short Questions

For Don, there is a program called HyperBook for the PC that allows you to
convert hypercard files to pc readable and useable programs. It is analagous
to Hypercard. A good person to talk to about that is Paul Schatz, UWis, he
has used it to convert Spectra
Deck for the Mac to SpectraBook for the PC. Also, I would be happy to answer
any spreadsheet questions. They are very powerful for doing chemistry problems
of all types, including reaction kinetics and thermodynamics. I strongly
recommend teaching students how to set up their own spreadsheets rather than
using a template although there is time involved in teaching students how to
handle the spreadsheet software.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 14:56:43 CST
From: JOHN GELDER
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Subject: spreadsheets

The phone number for N. Simonson & Co is (310) 301-2847. The area code
has changed. Dave Barclay handles the book. He has an e-mail address
of 2849430@mcimail.com if you want to go directly to him.

John Gelder
Department of Chemistry
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 09:46:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Discussion of Paper 10

It is now 9:48 EST on Friday, July 9,1993

Short Questions for Paper 10 should be sent to CHEMCONF during this day.
Discussion of this paper will not begin for several weeks.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 09:58:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 10 - Short Questions

PAPER 10 - SHORT QUESTIONS

PERSONAL COMPUTERS IN TEACHING PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

Aleksei A. Kubasov, Vassilii S.Lyutsarev, Kirill V.Ermakov,
Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Republic.
E-MAIL: LASER@mch.chem.msu.su

> The advanced course in Physical Chemistry for students of
> Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University

> Special group of students with profound studying of mathematics
> and physical chemistry ... Fundamental course of physical chemistry
> for these students ...

QUESTION 1
a. How many students are there in this course?
b. Are these undergraduate or graduate students?
c. If they are undergraduate students, is this the first course in
physical chemistry these students have taken, or is this an advanced
course?
d. How much chemical kinetics have they been taught prior to taking this
course?
e. How many students are there at Moscow State University?
How many undergraduate and graduate chemistry majors?
How large a chemistry faculty does the University have?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Reform freshman computer course.

QUESTION 2
a. Prior to taking your course, how much of a background in computers do the
students have?
b. Do all chemistry majors take a freshman computing course?
c. What is presently taught in the freshman computing course?
d. What computing facilities are available for students generally at
Moscow State University?
e. What computing facilities are available for
students taking your course? Do you have enough computers for the
number of students you are teaching? Do students routinely use
word processing?

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13676
ROSEN@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 17:03:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 10 - Short Questions

PAPER 10 - SHORT QUESTIONS

PERSONAL COMPUTERS IN TEACHING PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

Aleksei A. Kubasov, Vassilii S.Lyutsarev, Kirill V.Ermakov,
Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Republic.
E-MAIL: LASER@mch.chem.msu.su

> The advanced course in Physical Chemistry for students of
> Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University

> Special group of students with profound studying of mathematics
> and physical chemistry ... Fundamental course of physical chemistry
> for these students ...

QUESTION 1
a. How many students are there in this course?
b. Are these undergraduate or graduate students?
c. If they are undergraduate students, is this the first course in
physical chemistry these students have taken, or is this an advanced
course?
d. How much chemical kinetics have they been taught prior to taking this
course?
e. How many students are there at Moscow State University?
How many undergraduate and graduate chemistry majors?
How large a chemistry faculty does the university have?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Reform freshman computer course.

QUESTION 2
a. Prior to taking your course, how much of a background in computers do the
students have?
b. Do all chemistry majors take a freshman computing course?
c. What is presently taught in the freshman computing course?
d. What computing facilities are available for students generally at
Moscow State University?
e. What computing facilities are available for
students taking your course? Do you have enough computers for the
number of students you are teaching? Do students routinely use
word processing?

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13676
ROSEN@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 20:51:02 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: paper9 - questions
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri,
9 Jul 1993 11:58:26 -0500 from

>4.. There are several avenues to publication that can be
>counted just the same as tradition work. J. Chem. Educ.
>software is one. There are 10-15 reviewed publications put
>out by the ISTE (International Society for Technology in
>Education), 800-336-5191. Finally, traditional publications
>such as J. Chem. Educ., J. Research in Sci. Tchg, J. Coll.
>Sci. Tchg., etc., regularly publish contributions of this
>nature.

At most state universities, faculty get demerits for publishing in these
journals. Until this attitude changes, we cannot in good conscience that
young faculty members publish in this way. Someday maybe. Not now.

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506

=======================================================================

ANNOUNCEMENT & CORRECTION:

Section IV:

The simulated potentiometric titration problem set HAS now been ported
to the program which is available by anonymous FTP. It is included in
version 1.1 of the program, not 1.0 which was first submitted with the
paper. Thus, PGEN11ZP.EXE, is the self-extracting zipped version 1.1
of the package, including the potentiometric titration problem.

======================================================================
From: Reed Howald

> I have pgen11zp.exe, ... where are the three figures referred to?

Since you have pgen11zp.exe, the three figures are included there,
PAPRFIG1.GIF, PAPRFIG2.GIF, and PAPRFIG3.GIF

Additionally, they are available via FTP from
FTP: info.umd.edu
Directory: info/Teaching/ChemConference/Paper06

Both GIF and UUE versions are available in this directory.

> Using GET PAPER6 FIGURE3 with LISTSERV doesn't work.

Copies of the three figures were not initially placed in the listserv
filelist. They are currently in place and can be obtained by the above
command.

======================================================================
From: Donald Rosenthal

> In Section VI
>> B. Generation of Statistical Fluctuations about a Value:

>> The program uses a function called ErrFactor (relative standard
>> deviation). This function returns a statistically generated
>> multiplier with a mean value of 1.00 and a standard deviation
>> given by the relative standard deviation specified. For
>> example, if it is desired to apply a 5 percent fluctuation to a
>> given value, the function called is ErrFactor (0.05). The
>> function returns a randomly generated value of 1.00 +/- 0.05
>> which is applied as a multiplier to the value one wishes to
>> randomize. Thus a multiplier between 0.95 and 1.05 is generated
>> approximately 2 of 3 times. Since this follows a normal
>> distribution, occasionally one finds the 2 or 3 or 4 sigma
>> variation. This produces fluctuations with points which are
>> outside the limit (here 5 %) about 1 of 3 times.

> In normal unweighted least squares calculations it is implicitly
> assumed:
>
> 1. There is no error in X values, only in Y values.
> 2. There is equal probability (0.5) of finding positive and negative
> deviations from the true value of Y.
> 3. The error in the value of Y is normally distributed (i.e. larger
> errors are less probable than smaller errors).
> 4. The magnitude of the error in Y is independent of the value of X.
>
> QUESTION: Does your program generate errors which conform to
> conditions 3 and 4?

Yes, all conditions including 3. and 4. are satisfied. As indicated in
Section VI A., The random number routines were taken from "Microsoft
Quickbasic Programmer's Toolbox" by John Clark Craig, Microsoft Press,
ISBN 1-1-55615-127-6, p. 353-364.

"RandShuffle (key$)" was changed to "RandomizeOn (seed)" to make it
both more readable and more like the "Randomize seed" in QuickBasic.

"RandNormal! (mean!, stddev!)" was programmed as a function, and
changed to "ErrFactor (RelativeStandardDeviation)" with mean value set
to 1. and passing the relative standard deviation to the function. In
this way if you want to apply a 5% random fluctuation to a given set of
values the BASIC syntax is

Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05)

The Y values ARE normally distributed with larger errors being less
probable than smaller errors. The error produced in Y is independent
of the value of X and dependent only upon the relative standard
deviation desired. One does need to be careful in selecting the
relative standard deviation, because one can expect to see the 2, 3,
and 4 sigma variations with the appropriate frequency.

> If the program multiplies the true value by a factor,
> the error depends upon the value of X.

I am not clear what is meant here. The error generated depends upon
the value of Y being changed, and the relative standard deviation in Y
which is sought. Y's are generated from X values according to the
relationships of the particular phenomena. The fluctuations are then
applied to the generated values of Y.

> There are algorithms which will generate normally
> distributed errors which conform to condition 4.

I believe this is such an algorithm. The magnitude of the error in Y
is independent of the magnitude of X, but is dependent on the magnitude
of Y since what is being specified here is the relative standard
deviation in Y.

======================================================================
From: Reed Howald

> I am concerned about the question Lanzafame raises, how do we give
> our students more experience with graphing? I would hope
> integrating computers into courses can speed up certain processes,
> including data collection and graphing. My question is - Do you
> find that using computers gives your students more experience with
> graphing, or do you have a net loss of time to spend on fundamentals
> like graphing?

You raise some very interesting questions.

1. I use the computer to generate unique problems for the individual
student to do. The principal advantage is that one can grade the
assignments with more confidence that each student is doing his own
work and not copying someone else's work and submitting it. What I
find from grading the exercises is that many students do not have
the ability to work with linear relationships that they think they
have. This is quite evident when I have computer generated keys for
each data set that a student analyzes graphically. In this respect,
I think that it does help to provide a bit more experience and, with
answer keys, a better experience. I hand back the answer keys with
the graded assignments.

2. I suspect that the use of computers to "speed up certain processes"
is a bit more controversial. (I only very reluctantly stopped
requiring my students to use a slide rule. ;-) ) I think that
there is pedagogic value in manually plotting graphs and putting the
best line through the data. While there is the perception (by
students and some faculty) that students already have these skills,
my experience with these graphical problem sets is that too many
students do not.

I think there is a lesson to be learned from the high school algebra
problem. Here, the practice and drill of algebra and word problems
was considered a waste of time. All students had to do was learn
the principles. After all, those of us with experience and
hindsight could see the few principles whose applications were
really quite repetitive. If the student mastered the few
principles, they could certainly apply these principles and "do
algebra". The result is that all too many high school graduates
cannot "do algebra" and of course, there is no point in struggling
with menial algebra when doing calculus. The result is sometimes
students who cannot take the principles of calculus to a real answer
because they cannot "do algebra".

I confess that I am bothered when I find that students are using
graphing software to process data at the general chemistry level. I
believe that the manual processes should be mastered before using a
graphing software. If those skills are mastered in the general
course, I believe that the software solution can be used profitably
by students in later courses.

We must keep in mind that most of these problem sets are used with
General Chemistry students. After these skills are mastered, I am
less concerned with allowing students in Physical Chemistry, for
example, to use computers for linear regression and graphing.

3. I guess there is "a net loss of time ... spent on fundamentals like
graphing" relative to what could be done using software packages.
In my opinion, this is time which must be spent when students do not
already have these skills.

4. In our second year analytical course, students learn to calculate
regression results from x's, y's, and sums of squares etc. We
believe they should learn how to do the basic calculations before
using regression programs like black boxes. Too many regression
programs do not calculate the errors in the slope and intercept with
which the student can propagate the errors in quantities derived
from these regression slopes and intercepts.

In the analytical course, the computer generated potentiometric
titration of an unknown polyprotic acid mixture provides an
experience which parallels the mixed phosphate titration which is
done in the lab but provides some unique aspects. Here, students
can analyze titration curves for acid mixtures which would be
difficult to construct in the laboratory with accurately known
compositions. This is not a graphing exercise of linear
relationships. Further, we take the opportunity to have students
analyze the end points using first and second derivatives. This
shows what "noise" does to a signal which is differentiated. It
vividly explains the sensitivity of the first derivative mode on the
auto-titrator. Students are graded on their interpretation of the
titration curve and the written laboratory report. The mixed
phosphate grade is based on the quantitative results.

======================================================================

-----------------------------------------------------------
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 11:34:19 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Help - Name of Book

Some time in the last week or two a reference was given for a revies
, that is, review article about computers in chemical education. I can't
find the citation in all the pages of paper that I have accumulated.

I would appreciate the title and author again.

Thank you.

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University

Roszieli@ubvms
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 11:10:01 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper 6 discussion

Paper 6 discussion
errors Rosenthal's question and answer?

>4. The magnitude of the error in Y is independent of the value of X

Radioactive decay is a good example of data where plotting a logarithm of a
measure quantity is useful. It is included as an example in the program.
However one glance at Figure 2 shows immediately that this is not experimental
data. The program has put in fluctuations, but not so that the proportional
error increases at later times, when the count is low and statistical
fluctuations get worse.
This problem is what Rosenthal apparently had in mind when he said
> If the program multiplies the true value by a factor,
> the error depends upon the value of X.
Not really. However the error should depend upon the value of Y, and in
this case and many others, the error does not depend linearly on Y as is
assumed by this method of calculation (and shown in Lanzaframe's examples).
Random errors in practice are more complicated than either of the easy
assumptions: random error is independent of Y or random fractional error is
independent of Y.
I strongly believe in giving students experimental data to work with in
order to avoid data which gives a grossly incorrect idea about the nature of
random errors (as this does, at least in this example). To make a program
like Lanzaframe's useable the error generation subroutines must be made more
complex. Perhaps three percentage errors could be specified, and three random
numbers generated to give E1, E2, and E3 errors. Then the calculated Y value
could be Y(true) * (1+E1) + sqrt(Y(true) * (1 + E2) + E3.

We are fortunate in this case to have the source code in Quickbasic
available, so a programmer can make the required corrections and try the
revised program before giving it to students. Many good commercial programs
are unfortunately unusable because corrections like this are impossible.

I strongly agree students need more practice with graphing. I am somewhat
concerned with students copying answers from other students. That's one reason
I like interfaced laboratories, students can get lots of data to graph which is
unique. I disagree with Lanzaframe on the value of denying freshman chemistry
students the use of graphing programs. We give our students at this level a
program (B4) which does spreadsheet type calculations and does graphing. If
you want (as I do) to have students test alternate ways to graph one set of
data, they really need the speed of computer graphing.

I can see real value in Lanzaframe's program in assigning even more
graphing problems to our students. However before I will use it the treatment
of random errors must be improved so that the data would at least be
indistinguishable from real data. And if we are to assign ten times as many
problems as Lanzaframe does, I think we would have to abandon hand grading.
The computer that assigns the problems will have to do the grading also. I
personally would also need the capability of continually adding new types of
problems to the system. I know what I need in the way of computer assisted
instruction, and I find that it is not yet available. But I may be a minority
of one. I would like to know what other conference participants think.

Sincerely
Reed Howald

"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu"
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 14:32:39 CDT
From: "GARY L. BERTRAND"
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon,
12 Jul 1993 11:10:01 MDT from

Regarding Least Squares Regression

I think that both comments on Rosenthal's question are missing the point. The
experimental uncertainty is a function of the experiments. Sometimes the uncer
tainty in Y is independent of Y (which is assumed by normal unweighted regressi
on), sometimes the error is directly proportional to Y as in a constant % error
(unweighted least squares treats this properly if log(Y) is linear with X),
and sometimes the relationship is more complex (proportional to sqrt(Y) for
counting). To deal properly with these situations, one must not only under-
stand the experiment, but weighting procedures as well. Joe Noggle's EasyFit
Program and Discussion is the best treatment I've seen.

*************************************************************************
* GARY L. BERTRAND, DEPT OF CHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA *
* ROLLA, MO 65401. (314)-341-4441 *
* BITNET- GBERT@UMRVMB INTERNET- GBERT@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU *
* "I NEVER WANTED TO BE FAMOUS, I JUST WANTED TO BE GREAT." RAY CHARLES *
*************************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:10:09 -0700
From: Stephen Lower
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

>2. I suspect that the use of computers to "speed up certain processes"
> is a bit more controversial. (I only very reluctantly stopped
> requiring my students to use a slide rule. ;-) ) I think that
> there is pedagogic value in manually plotting graphs and putting the
> best line through the data. [Reed Howald]

... maybe once or twice in one's lifetime, but let's face it:
manual plotting, like manual titration, is fast ceasing to be
a valued skill. Far better, in my view, to spend the time on
getting students to actively think about and interpret graphs;
that's one reason why I make my students work with log-concentration
vs. pH graphs, for example. The idea that plodding manual operations
(such as taking lecture notes) somehow enhances learning has a certain
appeal, particularly to those of us who had to do things the old way,
but it does not seem to be very well supported by the research literature.
----------
Steve Lower - Vancouver, Canada
Dept of Chemistry - Simon Fraser University - Burnaby BC V5A 1S6
lower@sfu.ca 604-291-3353 FAX: 604-291-3765
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 16:23:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 6 - Discussion on Least Squares and Plotting

> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 09:18:40 EDT
> From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
> Subject: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Donald Rosenthal
> In normal unweighted least squares calculations it is implicitly
> assumed:
>
> 1. There is no error in X values, only in Y values.
> 2. There is equal probability (0.5) of finding positive and negative
> deviations from the true value of Y.
> 3. The error in the value of Y is normally distributed (i.e. larger
> errors are less probable than smaller errors).
> 4. The magnitude of the error in Y is independent of the value of X.
>
> QUESTION: Does your program generate errors which conform to
> conditions 3 and 4?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> YOUR ANSWER
> Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05) ***************************************

> The Y values ARE normally distributed with larger errors being less
> probable than smaller errors. The error produced in Y is independent
> of the value of X and dependent only upon the RELATIVE standard
> deviation desired.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>MY STATEMENT
> If the program multiplies the true value by a factor,
> the error depends upon the value of X.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> YOUR RESPONSE
> I am not clear what is meant here. ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Suppose the student performs an experiment on Temperature Conversion
* where different temperatures are measured using both Fahrenheit and
* Celsius thermometers or such measurements are simulated. (See
* Section III-A of your paper. An unweighted linear least squares
* fit of the equation: F = k C + a
* where F = Fahrenheit temperature
C = Celsius temperature
k = the slope (theoretically 1.8)
a = the y intercept (theoretically 32)
* assumes NO ERROR in Celsius temperature readings, and that the
* error in Fahrenheit temperature readings does not depend upon
* the Fahrenheit temperature (perhaps it would be + or - 0.1 Fahrenheit
* degrees with a reasonably good thermometer)
* I am not certain what your equation Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05)
* means, but I assume it means that the error in Y (Fahrenheit) would
* be zero when Y = 0 F and 100 times larger (on the average) when
* Y = 100 F as compared to when Y = 1 F. IS THIS CORRECT?
* If not, I don't understand Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05).

* If what I say above is true, then the equation should be fitted by
* a WEIGHTED rather than an UNWEIGHTED least squares calculation.

* IF THE EQUATION FITTED IS:
* LOG Y = A X + B
* THEN Y = Y * ErrFactor will result in errors in LOG Y (but not Y)
* which are independent of LOG Y. Thus, what you did
* is appropriate for two of your examples (the LOG ACTIVITY
* and LOG Vapor Pressure fits).
======================================================================

* In your response to Reed Howald you indicate:

> 1. I use the computer to generate unique problems for the individual
student to do.
* Good

> 2. I think that there is pedagogic value in manually plotting graphs
> and putting the best line through the data.
* I tend to agree that freshmen should perform one or two plots by
* hand. I'm not certain that David Brooks (Paper 9) would agree.

> I confess that I am bothered when I find that students are using
> graphing software to process data at the general chemistry level.
* When I taught freshmen general chemistry lab, I had the students
* prepare manual plots AND use linear least squares and plotting
* programs (see Paper 1 and my article in Spring 1992 Computer in
* Chemical Education Newsletter). Much more can be learned from the
* statistics obtained from linear least squares calculations.
* Comparing manual plots with what computers can do is instructive.
* Of course, what you do will depend on the availability of
* computers. Should practicing engineers and scientists be doing
* manual plots or using least squares and plotting software?
* For some undergraduates the chemistry laboratory course may be the
* only laboratory course the student takes. What should the student
* learn from such a course?

> 4. In our second year analytical course, students learn to calculate
> regression results from x's, y's, and sums of squares etc. We
> believe they should learn how to do the basic calculations before
> using regression programs like black boxes.
* I don't agree with this. Such calculations are laborious. In my
* opinion a student's time is much better spent trying to understand
* the results of least squares calculations. Students who really want
* to understand the calculations should take a course in statistics.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:22:43 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

>>2. I suspect that the use of computers to "speed up certain processes"
>> is a bit more controversial. (I only very reluctantly stopped
>> requiring my students to use a slide rule. ;-) ) I think that
>> there is pedagogic value in manually plotting graphs and putting the
>> best line through the data. [Reed Howald]

>... maybe once or twice in one's lifetime, but let's face it:
>manual plotting, like manual titration, is fast ceasing to be
>a valued skill. Far better, in my view, to spend the time on
>getting students to actively think about and interpret graphs;
>that's one reason why I make my students work with log-concentration
>vs. pH graphs, for example. The idea that plodding manual operations
>(such as taking lecture notes) somehow enhances learning has a certain
>appeal, particularly to those of us who had to do things the old way,
>but it does not seem to be very well supported by the research literature.
>[Steve Lower - Vancouver, Canada]

This points out a weakness that so many of us share. We lack information
on the effectiveness of our teaching strategies. It may be time for us
to investigate the use of assessment as an aid to instruction.
There are many quick and effective strategies that would only
take two or three minutes to do in a class and can be randomly or more
carefully examined to see if the students have 'gotten it' whatever
it may be.

In the mean time we should not redo the sliderule/calculator wars
into a manual.plotting/computer.plotting graphgate.
You know which will win, its just a matter of time. The real issue
as Steve points out is how the students are thinking about the
printed word or the pretty graph. We need to develop a critical
attitude in our students. This also requires an understanding
of their developmental levels. Some skills cannot be learned
at early developmental levels. Computer images and nice looking
graphs prepared with a minimum of tedium fosters interest and
learning.

My own experience in PChem shows
that students learn more effectively about the significance of their
graphs when they are using the best technology that I can offer them
for preparing their graphs. This is true for gen chem too.
Unfortunately, so many gen chem labs are not equipped to offer this
way to learn. This is an area where we all can help by pushing
for more computers for the 1st year chem. students.

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 20:08:54 -0500
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

I agree completely with Theresa, assesment of our students is paramount.
This is particularly true at smaller (or less well funded) schools where
the cost of such technology is not trivial. If the school invests in the
equipment there should be an assurance that educational quality improves.
George Long
Indiana Univ. Of PA
GRLONG@grove.iup.edu(or iup.bitnet)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 21:10:48 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Help request - reference

I found the reference that I thought was sent out through this list.
You all may be interested if you haven't heard of it yet.

"Computational Chemistry in the Undergraduate Curriculum"
by Roger L. DeKock (Calvin College),
Jeffry D. Madura (University of South Alabama),
Frank Rioux (St. John's University), and
Joseph Casanova (California State University at Los Angeles).

in Volume 4 of REVIEWS IN COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY 1993

ed by K.B. Lipkowitz (IUPUI) and Donald B. Boyd (Lilly Research Laboratories).
ISBN 1-56081-620-1
VCH Publishers, Inc.
303 NW 12th AVE
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
tel: 800-367-8247

price $75

information obtained from the mail exploder : chemistry@osc.edu
- a computational chemistry list.

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:20:45 EDT
From: Sherman Henzel
Subject: Maual graphing and manual titrations

Steve Lower wrote that manual graphing and manual titrations are no longer
performed. I teach Analytical Chemistry at MCC and have occasion to visit many
laboratories with my students. They have the same attitude toward titrations
that Steve Lower does. They think that when to industry they will never do
another (manual) titration again. They are always surprised to find how many
titrations are still done manually. While there may be few if any graphs being
done by hand, there are many titrations still being done that way!
___________________________________________________________
| Sherman Henzel Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5124 |
| Internet: shenzel@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 01:08:29 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Paper 6 Reply to some of Monday's Discussion

######################################################################

REGARDING ERRORS GENERATED IN THE DATA:

Judging from some of the comments and discussion thus far, this paper
has not been a masterpiece of clarity:

1. My goal was simply to provide some computer generated data as
exercises for students--principally in General Chemistry.

2. These sets currently represent four or five graphical problems for
students to do. This should not be an undue burden for manual
analysis. It should be simple review for most students, but too
frequently turns out to be otherwise.

3. To provide a bit of realism, I decided to produce some scatter in
the data rather than present perfectly linear data where any two
data points would have sufficed.

4. I chose to apply normally distributed scatter in the Y values which
would correspond to relative standard deviations of the order of a
few percent.

5. Students are told that there is scatter in the points which is meant
to simulate errors which might be made in collecting the data. They
are asked to do the best they can to determine the slopes and
intercepts characterizing the data. They are then asked to use
these slopes and intercepts to answer some questions about the
phenomena they have just characterized.

######################################################################

Reed Howald's comments on radioactive decay errors:

> The program has put in fluctuations, but not so that the
> proportional error increases at later times, when the count is low
> and statistical fluctuations get worse.

I agree with Reed Howald that the error in my radioactive decay problem
is not realistically distributed, but I'm not sure that many freshmen
can tell the difference. The scatter in Figure 2 represents about a
one percent relative standard deviation in the log (Activity). If I
recall correctly, standard deviations in radioactive measurements
varies with approximately the square root of the counts. Thus for
Figure 2, the higher counts should show about a one percent deviation
in the Activity (NOT the log (Activity) ) and about a three percent
deviation in the Activity for the lower counts.

Since the program has been written modularly, and I have tried produce
readable code, it should be relatively easy to modify the program to
suit individual tastes.

######################################################################

>From Steve Lower:

>> I think that there is pedagogic value in manually plotting graphs
>> and putting the best line through the data.

> ... maybe once or twice in one's lifetime, but let's face it:
> manual plotting, like manual titration, is fast ceasing to be a
> valued skill. ..... The idea that plodding manual operations (such
> as taking lecture notes) somehow enhances learning has a certain
> appeal, particularly to those of us who had to do things the old
> way, but it does not seem to be very well supported by the research
> literature.

It seems to me that the students I work with require more than once or
twice in a lifetime to understand what they are doing. It is not clear
to me that this once or twice in a lifetime approach has not
contributed to our students' inability to do algebra. How many have
noticed the increase in very basic algebra which has been added to
general chemistry texts to compensate for student's lack of facility
with algebra. I think it is important to stress fundamentals. Yes,
even manual titrations. Many of our chemical technology students still
find they can earn a living with these antiquated skills. Not every
small company can afford auto titrators, and not every large company
will dedicate one for every occasional titration.

######################################################################
From: Donald Rosenthal

> Suppose the student performs an experiment on Temperature
> Conversion where different temperatures are measured using both
> Fahrenheit and Celsius thermometers or such measurements are
> simulated. (See Section III-A of your paper. An unweighted linear
> least squares fit of the equation: F = k C + a where,
> F = Fahrenheit temperature
> C = Celsius temperature
> k = the slope (theoretically 1.8)
> a = the y intercept (theoretically 32)
> assumes NO ERROR in Celsius temperature readings, and that the
> error in Fahrenheit temperature readings does not depend upon the
> Fahrenheit temperature (perhaps it would be + or - 0.1 Fahrenheit
> degrees with a reasonably good thermometer) I am not certain what
> your equation Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05) means, but I assume it means
> that the error in Y (Fahrenheit) would be zero when Y = 0 F and 100
> times larger (on the average) when Y = 100 F as compared to when
> Y = 1 F. IS THIS CORRECT?

YES!

> If what I say above is true, then the equation should be fitted by
> a WEIGHTED rather than an UNWEIGHTED least squares calculation.

Point taken.

>> In our second year analytical course, students learn to calculate
>> regression results from x's, y's, and sums of squares etc. We
>> believe they should learn how to do the basic calculations before
>> using regression programs like black boxes.

> I don't agree with this. Such calculations are laborious. In my
> opinion a student's time is much better spent trying to understand
> the results of least squares calculations. Students who really want
> to understand the calculations should take a course in statistics.

Our students do not have a statistics course available which is
appropriate for science students.

We have used Harris and Kratochvil in the laboratory and "Fundamentals
of Analytical Chemistry" by Skoog and West from 3rd edition through the
current 6th edition. They have always had (in my opinion) an excellent
presentation of statistics for the analytical student including
confidence limits, propagation of errors in calculations, and linear
regression with errors in slopes and intercepts (calculated from the
formulas involving sums of squares etc.). Harris and Kratochvil extend
this with the equation for calculating the error resulting from
applying a calibration curve to an unknown. This formula is presented
in the text from the sums derived for the regression calculation. I
think it is instructive to look at how the terms in this equation
relate to the uncertainty in the quantity derived from the calibration
curve.

I believe that, while somewhat laborious, these calculations are worth
the effort and provide the student with a good basic understanding of
statistics. These calculations do lend themselves rather nicely to
using a spreadsheet as a template for the calculations. We have
experimented with this approach without as much success as we would
like. It is probably worth some additional effort.

######################################################################
From: theresa Julia Zielinski

> We lack information on the effectiveness of our teaching
> strategies. It may be time for us to investigate the use of
> assessment as an aid to instruction. There are many quick and
> effective strategies that would only take two or three
> minutes to do in a class and can be randomly or more carefully
> examined to see if the students have 'gotten it' whatever it
> may be.

I would be interested in an example or two of what you have in mind
here.

######################################################################

-----------------------------------------------------------
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 05:15:43 -0400
From: ALEX@SUYARS.BITNET

Dear networkers,
I need an advice or a kind of urgent help to find addresses
of chemicists in Japan , working on the aromatic nitrogen
containing polyfunctional compounds.
I am from Yaroslavl university (Russia) and have an APPORTUNITY
WITH ALL NESESSARY FUNDING TO SPEND UP TO 3 MONTHES IN JAPAN
(university,firm any chemical institution) as a visiting scientiest
Thanksin advance for any help an advices,
Dr. Vladimir Orlov
Biological depertament ,Yaroslavl University.Russia.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 09:36:22 MCK
From: Alex Rouss
Subject: Need help to communicate with Japan chemistry.

I need an advise or a kind of support to find a way to start communication
with Japan chemicists, firm or academic, interested in cooperation with
Yaroslavl University, Russia. Our scient. interests - organic sinthesys and
reaction ability models for nitrogen containing polyfunctional aromatic
compounds.
I have a financial support for approximately 3 month full accomodation
in Japan as a visiting scientist.
Thanks in advance for any kind of help.

Dr. Vladimir Orlov
Biological Departament
Yaroslavl University
Russia.

temp.e-mail: alex@suyars.bitnet
alex@icn.yars.free.msk.su
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 09:12:09 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Paper 6 Reply: The error of my errors.
From: Donald Rosenthal

RECALL:

> ...I am not certain what
> your equation Y = Y * ErrFactor(0.05) means, but I assume it means
> that the error in Y (Fahrenheit) would be zero when Y = 0 F and 100
> times larger (on the average) when Y = 100 F as compared to when
> Y = 1 F. IS THIS CORRECT?

YES!

> If what I say above is true, then the equation should be fitted by
> a WEIGHTED rather than an UNWEIGHTED least squares calculation.

Point taken.

ADDITIONALLY:

> IF THE EQUATION FITTED IS:
> LOG Y = A X + B
> THEN Y = Y * ErrFactor will result in errors in LOG Y (but not Y)
> which are independent of LOG Y. Thus, what you did
> is appropriate for two of your examples (the LOG ACTIVITY
> and LOG Vapor Pressure fits).

Actually, this is not "correctly" done either. In the LOG ACTIVITY
and LN Vapor Pressure cases, the fluctuations were created in the logs
of the quantities not in the Y values before the log was taken.

I began playing with the idea of generating graphs for students almost
ten years ago and reconstructing the choices made has been a bit slow
to return. (The joys of being one of the old of which Steve Lower
speaks.)

As I indicated, the goal was simply to generate unique problem sets
for students, the answers to which were available to the instructor
for grading. I further indicated that the fluctuation in the data was
introduced to provide some realism.

On further reflection, the reason for generating the errors in the WAY
that I did was to help insure that the student saw the line as
averaging the fluctuations in the data points. Once the "best" line
is placed, the line represents the data and the line should be used to
determine the slope and intercept. Students often have a tendency to
to draw a line through the points, and then use two of the data points
to determine the slope and intercept (totally ignoring the line). I
played with the fluctuations to produce points which would appear
linear, but for which the line would clearly be the best
representation of the data. I did not want the student to luck into
the correct answer by ignoring the line and choosing two points to
represent all of the data. This was best achieved by introducing a
few percent relative standard deviation in the Y values of the graph.

In the example of the radioactive decay, the standard deviation in the
Activity varies approximately as the square root of the Activity. By
the time one takes the log of the Activity, the fluctuation begins to
disappear in most cases except those of very low Activity.

Thus, the error was chosen to provide data which would require the
student to think about the differences between the data and the line
and the fact the "least squares" was a mathematical way (through
calculus) of selecting the slope and intercept to minimize the
"squares" of the error produced by the placement of the line.

In introducing the assignments, I discuss the differences between the
"least squares" calculation from computer or calculator, and this
"eye-ball least squares" that they are being asked to do. I hope in
this way to give them a better appreciation of what the calculator is
doing.

The result is "error" in the error for pedagogic reasons.

-----------------------------------------------------------
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 08:46:24 -0500
From: aubrey mcintosh
Subject: Archives

An associate has a system to produce one-off CD-ROMs in final testing.
How much info is in the Chemconf archive? (a CD-ROM will hold
approximately 600 Mb)
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 09:08:50 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper 6 discussion evaluation

>We need to evaluate our teaching methods

>There are quick and easy methods

The schools of education spend a lot of time and effort on evaluation without
producing anything which I can respect scientifically. It is nice to see the
output of student questionaires as in paper 7. There is however a placebo
effect here. Students will respond favorably to the teacher's enthusiasm in
trying something new whether or not it is an improvement.

Is there any method which is reasonably accurate and reasonably reliable for
evaluating a teaching method?

I think there is one. It is machine graded multiple (15) choice examinations
with partial credit. I am firmly opposed to the use of standard 5 choice
examinations. They either encourage quessing, or else like the ACS tests in
physical chemistry they are tricky, giving lower scores to students who know a
little instead of nothing.

However if one provides 15 answers to choose from the situation is quite
different. Guessing is not encouraged. And commonly chosen wrong answers can
be awarded partial credit, just like we would do if we could do accurate hand
grading for large classes. If one has a large selection of good 15 answer
questions on a particular topic, one could get reliable measures of performance
on a topic from different sections, different years, and different schools.

This type of exam question was developed by Dr. B. P. Mundy, Dr. A. C. Craig,
and myself in 1989. I will show you a 10 choice example from 1991:

10. (7 points) Determine the empirical formula of the compound with the
following percentage composition: 52.14% C, 13.13% H, and 34.73% O.

a. CHO b. CH3O c. C2H2O d. C2H5O

e. C2H6O f. C3HO6 g. C3H6O

h. C4H12O2 i. C4H13O2 j. C5HO3

Of course on the actual exam we could use subscripts. Ten item multiple choice
forms are available commercially. 15 item forms will be printed and graded if
we create the demand. Student results on this particular question were:

answer number of students points awarded
a 5 0
b 14 0
c 4 0
d 7 0
e 239 7
f 35 2
g 4 0
h 29 5
i 110 3
j 58 0

Who is interested in sharing machine graded exam questions for the evaluation
of teaching methods?

Sincerely,
Reed Howald

"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu"
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 12:46:23 -0700
From: Stephen Lower
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

>I agree completely with Theresa, assesment of our students is paramount.
>This is particularly true at smaller (or less well funded) schools where
>the cost of such technology is not trivial. If the school invests in the
>equipment there should be an assurance that educational quality improves.
>George Long

This assurance can never be possible because the "educational quality"
that results from the introduction of new technology tends in practice
to be limited more by the attitudes and openness to change on the part
of the faculty than on the technology itself; at least this is what I
have seen with CAI for the last 20+ years. As for costs, consider
that if a $1000 software package can deliver 10% of the instruction
of a $40,000 teacher, this represents a savings of $3000 in the first
year and $4000 in subsequent years. The educational establishment
has been remarkably impervious to the implications of this fact of
elementary economics, but the public and the politicians are beginning
to take notice (I noted Senator Moynihan's remarks on this topic
in last Sunday's "Meet the Press"). I would suggest that we can't
afford NOT to invest in technology and make sure we learn to use
it effectively. (I'll be preaching a sermon on this subject
at one of the ChemEd93 workshops next month.)
----------
Steve Lower - Vancouver, Canada
Dept of Chemistry - Simon Fraser University - Burnaby BC V5A 1S6
lower@sfu.ca 604-291-3353 FAX: 604-291-3765
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:11:45 -0500
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

I agree that we can't afford to not invest in educational technology. Also
it is imperative that we learn to use the available technology well, but
there is a point of diminishing returns. To determine where that point is
we need to know how good the technology is, and some type of student
assesment is essential to this determination. Also, the cost of training
(discussed in paper 9) should be considered in this discussion (I'll save
it for later). As a last comment, I believe many faculty unions have impeded
progress in this area because they believe the application of educational
technologies will reduce the number of staff. It would be far better if
faculty would push for more release time to learn how to apply technology
effectively, and provide evidence for improvement of educational quality.
george Long
Indiana Univ. of PA
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 18:43:51 EDT
From: Charlie Abrams
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of TUE 13 JUL 1993 10:11:45 EDT

> it for later). As a last comment, I believe many faculty unions have impeded
> progress in this area because they believe the application of educational
> technologies will reduce the number of staff. It would be far better if

If it is true that faculty resist this progress, it is based on a
myth. The work doesn't go away just because you have a program.
In my limited experience, I have found just the opposite to be true:
my students' questions have been more insightful, and require more
work on my part to answer, because the software gives them a better
understanding of the basics. (I'm using IR Tutor for ugrad organic.)
Furthermore, advances in technology have always led us to increase
our expectations of productivity - how many of us used (or needed?)
a word processor 10 years ago?

Charles B. Abrams
McGill University
(514) 398-6224
cx7q@musica.mcgill.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 19:29:40 -0400
From: Scott VanBramer
Subject: Paper6discussion

In response to Reed Howald regarding Paper6

< I can see real value in Lanzaframe's program in assigning even
< more graphing problems to our students. ... I personally
< would also need the capability of continually adding new types
< of problems to the system...

This past year I gave take home exams for the Instrumental
Analysis course at Lock Haven University. Because I was
concerned about students cheating I wanted to generate more than
one version of a question but was daunted by the size of this
task.

By using a spreadsheet (Lotus 123) I was able to add random noise
and quickly generate multiple versions of a question.
Appropriate parameters can be used to randomly pick a slope and
intercept for the data. "Lifelike" data can then be generated by
adding some random noise to predicted value of a data point.
This can be generated as follows:

(@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand+@rand-5)/5

This returns a random normally distributed value between -1 and
1. The accuracy of the gaussian distribution can be improved by
increasing the number of iterations.

By incorporating this "noise" into the spreadsheet calculation
(in whatever form appropriate for the data) the question is much
more realistic. Students were often surprised to receive
questions that did not plot as perfect lines (This indicates the
addition of noise into questions at all levels would be
advisable). After the spreadsheet is set up it is easy to graph
the data, print the question, and print the answers. Additional
questions can be quickly produced by recalculating the
spreadsheet to generate a new set of random numbers.

Obviously this will not work for large classes, although it could
be automated with macros. It makes it easy to write questions,
find answers, and generate a number of versions of the same
problem. This makes it difficult for students to copy (Or at
least requires enough effort that they will still learn).

The effort required to grade all this can be reduced by
generating several versions of each question (rather than unique
questions for each student). Randomly picking from the available
versions creates millions of unique exams from a much smaller
number of questions. Although students could still cheat, they
will not be able to help each other very much unless the entire
class cooperates.

Scott Van Bramer
svanbram@eagle.lhup.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:31:52 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion evaluation

I would like more information about machine graded exam questions.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 19:42:00 CDT
From: Ray Sommers
Subject: Paper 6 Titration Curves

1. In the titration data presented there is the _meter pH_ and the
_true pH_. Is this common practice to do this sort of calibration?
Comments?
2. In scanning the source code I do not seem to find any consideration
of activity coeficients. Is this true or did I just miss it?

|==================================================================|
| | | Ray Sommers, Chem Dept. +----+----+ |
| | | U of Wis @ Stevens Point | | | |
| / \ Stevens Point WI 54481 /^\ | /^\ |
| / UWSP \ rsommers@spu1.uwsp.edu (___) | (___) |
| (__________) rsommers@uwspmail.uwsp.edu /^\ |
|==================================================================|
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 23:20:28 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Paper 6 Titration Curves -- Reply

> 1. In the titration data presented there is the _meter pH_ and the
> _true pH_. Is this common practice to do this sort of calibration?

I don't think it is common practice. Most modern meters have capability for
two point calibration built in--ours do and the students use them that way in
the lab routinely. Although, the first time they learn to use the meter, we do
have them check the meter and electrode system with 5 buffers, plotting this
type of "calibration curve". It builds some confidence in the electrodes.

I just took the opportunity of having them work with another
calibration curve and built this into the problem generator.

> 2. In scanning the source code I do not seem to find any consideration
> of activity coeficients. Is this true or did I just miss it?

I did not build any consideration of activity coefficients into the titration
problem.

___________________________________________________________
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 23:36:59 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper 6 discussion

Frank Lanzafame writes
>The goal was simple to generate unique problem sets for
>students.....to provide some realism.

This is very important in teaching. Although is very
interesting to read about the precise and correct way to
represent error fluctuations we need to remember that we can't
do it all in one course. As you all know, for any learning
situation we need to set goals and objectives and then design
appropriate learning modules/units/lectures to get students to
achieve those objectives. Sometimes it is not necessary to do
things perfectly in order to accomplish a set of objectives.
This occurs everyday in gen. chem. Concentrations are
routinely used instead of activities, simplistic explanations
of orbitals, etc. the list is long. It's OK. We teach in
layers of repetition and increasing sophistication. Greater
refinement and insight is gained as the students progress and
mature. This is true when anyone, including ourselves, starts
studying in any area that is new to us. For example, someday I
hope to study the piano. I will start with scales and move my
way up (I'll use a new shiny electronic piano with attached
computer to study). It will be great fun. The purists may
say, "Oh, no not me I won't play unless I have an authentic
grand piano." The sound is not the same. Well I'll be playing
and they won't. So use any CAI that gets the job done even if
its not the grand CAI of our dreams. If it's a good CAI
students will learn enough to move on to the next level of
sophistication.

----------
Reed Howald mentions

> Placebo effect

Well pass out those placebos. I'll use anything that will
entice students into my web of learning. Once their hooked
their hooked for good.

His idea about multiple choice questions with 10 - 15 choices
is really interesting. This can be coupled to the idea of
assessment in the service of learning and instruction. This is
one of those easy ways to evaluate our teaching (Frank, this is
not the easiest example that I have, in fact I just invented it
today). At the end of a learning unit the instructor can give
a question of this type to the class. The class works for 5-10
minutes. The TA collects the answers and runs over to the
scoring machine. Class and instructor get immediate feedback
because each wrong answer corresponds to a unique but incorrect
type of thinking on the part of the students. Instructor then
analyzes results with class or if time is of essence just picks
out the one or two most serious error types and works on
correcting those misconceptions. The key here is that
misconceptions are discovered before they do permanent damage
to the learning progress. You say you don't have time, well
you may be able to find some by letting students do some
chapter work without your lecturing the same material that can
be found in the book. If you hold them accountable with this
type of exam they will comply (of course some will never
comply, but we can't solve all problems). To use this type of
question only on exams is to miss out on a powerful tool to aid
instruction. Corrections of mislearning must be done before
the students get to exams that determine their grade. This is
an essential part of instruction that enhances critical
thinking skills in students.

I certainly would be interested in sharing exam questions for
detecting student success in learning, i.e. questions that
would detect their misconceptions before a learning experience
and then again after their learning experience. I want to know
if they have gained by the experience, do they understand
better, can they think better.

Time and effort spent on evaluation is very important. NSF
guidelines for programs funded through the Undergraduate
Education Directorate require both summative and formative
assessment strategies.

--------

Steve Lower again makes an important point

The success of new technology is
>limited more by the attitudes and openness to change on the
>part of the faculty than on the technology

Elaborating on his idea

Technology should not reduce staff. The professor is still
needed to create the learning environment and implement the
sequence of learning for the student. To watch a tape of me
lecturing is not the same as me diagnosing, developing and
directing effective strategies for learning. Like a physician
I must see and observe the students in action in order to do
this effectively. So maybe the role of the professor is
shifting from presenting facts and stuff toward assessing the
success of students 1) to diagnose and improve learning and 2)
to monitor mastery and assign grades.

---------

What is source for Noggle's Easy Fit program?

-----------

To add to Don Rosenthal's contribution of 7/12 @ 16:23

Since we can't so it all we must select both the topics and the
depth of instruction. It might help to combine objectives in
order not to waste time (student time is a valuable resource).
For students with little/no prior spreadsheet experience and
little/no knowledge of curve fitting I use the first lab period
in the following way.

I give them 100 points to plot, the spreadsheet program and the
tutorial for the program. I expect them to use linear least
squares equations to get the equation for the line and compare
it to the regression result from the program. The resulting
graph is needed for one of their next experiments. There are
several layers of objectives here. 1) learn to use the computer
quickly. 2) learn spreadsheets fast - your life in this course
depends on it. 3) data analysis is easier with a computer.
4) LLS fitting is not so much a black box. 5) they learn to get
paper plots etc. They are not proficient by any standard but
they are on their way to being independent. A few more weeks
and they're teaching me tricks. There's that hook again.

-----------

Theresa Julia Zielinski
Niagara University
Niagara University NY 14109
Roszieli@Ubvms

=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 05:39:56 EST
From: "William J. Sondgerath"
Subject: Q & A to Paper 7

Questions from Donald Rosenthal
1. Is there a course text? Do students read the book?
Response: Yes, we use Heath Chemistry and we make regular reading
assignments. Most students read the book.

2. Do you lecture and provide time for class discussion and problem work-
ing sessions?
Response: Yes, we still lecture, but we try to keep this time to minimum
to retain their attention span. They are not usually as good
at taking notes as college students. Discussion time we feel
is very important for their understanding.

3.Are computers integrated into the class hours or do students use the com-
puters during study hall hours and after school?
Response: Most of the time is to work on computers is done during class
time. Make-up work or word processed reports are done on their
own.

4. On the average what fraction of the course is devoted to each type of
activity? What about traditional laboratory work?
Response: When we integrated computers we examined the chemistry course
content and applied the use of computers wherever they could
be appropriately used. For example--per cent composition
concepts instead of lecturing, the students use INTRODUCTION
TO CHEMISTRY software from Stan Smith of University of Illinois.
Or when they learn to use thermistors instead of thermometers,
they use them in the lab. Once they learn does not take much
more time. Spreadsheets and graphing take more time initially,
but after they learn their use not much more time than tradition-
al. The traditional labs that we were doing, now we are using
thermistors, pH probes, and/or spreadsheets and graphing in about
1/2 of them.

5. Computer activities must replace other activities. Which are the acti-
vities replaced? As I stated in 4, we try to do computer activities in
place of some other activity. i.e. Instead of a worksheet on writing
formulas or naming compounds, a computer skills building software is used.
Yes there are probably some topics that don't get as much attention in
first year chemistry such as molality, kinetics, equilibrium.

Questions from Mirja Karjalainen

1. How did you select the classes for CAI? Should the students have any
prior computer skills?
Response: 1) Two rooms in our high school are used for chemistry, one
has computers and one does not. Students were place in each
randomly according to their schedule needs. The teachers,
Dolores Handy and myself were assigned by administration
so that 1/2 of Chemistry I classes would be in computer
classroom.
2) Initially when the project was started not very many
students had computer experience, but since there were three
student/computer, we assigned at least one person who had
computer experience to each group. The cooperative learning
we found to be most useful. Most students now have used
Microsoft Works at least in word processing now when they
come to chemistry so that is very helpful in learning spread-
sheeting in Microsoft.

II. I'm not familiar with the Safety in Science Lab Software. Is it
designed specially for the high school science education? How much does
it contain data about properties of chemicals? Could I get some further
information about it (a demo?) through the INTERNET?
Reponse: 1) It contains two separate programs one for K-6 and one for 7-14.
2) It has a data base for inventorying and it give the common
hazards such fire, toxicity,..., and labels can be printed.
3) To schedule a workshop or seminar dealing with laboratory safety
and/or to discuss the safety software, call or write.
JaKel, INC
585 Southfork Dr.
Waukee, IA 50263
U.S.A
(515-225-6317)

Questions from R. T. Wilson
1. How many students are in your typical lab, and how long are the lab
periods?
Response: 24 is usually the maximum and the periods are 50 minutes.

2. How much time does a typical student require to finish an experiement
and report which requires word-processing or a spreadsheet? Do they
usually finish the report during the lab period, or do they have to
do it later in the media center?
Response: Typically one period is used taking data and recording it in a
spreadsheet and then following day calculations are done in
spreadsheet and graphing. Sometimes the slower students have
complete and print in the media center.

3. You say: Is this in paper
or computer format? When during the year is it used? Are the "20
instructional days" on which it is used consecutive? What do you
mean exactly by "tutorials?"
Response: Last question first. A tutorial to me is a method that a student
can learn a concept and in my case it is taught by the student
interacting with a computer software package such as Stan Smith's.
So for example if I am going to teach Percent Composition, I
give a study guide and the students will work through Stan Smith's
lessons on percent composition. Sometimes we use the software to
introduce topic, sometimes to reinforce, sometimes to conclude, and
other times as remediation.
Finally, all concepts that are taught are not adequately covered in
the software, but where and when we can find appropriate software
we utilize it in our curriculum at the appropriate time. Such as
during nomenclature, gas laws, solutions, acid-bases, periodicity
we use software tutorials.

THANKS FOR ALL QUESTIONS AND I HOPE THAT I ANSWERED THEM SATISFACTORILY. IF
NOT I AM ALWAYS HERE!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 09:20:46 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 6 Reply to Short Questions

George long notes that:
>I agree that we can't afford to not invest in educational technology. Also
>it is imperative that we learn to use the available technology well, but
>there is a point of diminishing returns. To determine where that point is
>we need to know how good the technology is, and some type of student
>assesment is essential to this determination. Also, the cost of training
>(discussed in paper 9) should be considered in this discussion (I'll save
>it for later). As a last comment, I believe many faculty unions have impeded
>progress in this area because they believe the application of educational
>technologies will reduce the number of staff. It would be far better if
>faculty would push for more release time to learn how to apply technology
>effectively, and provide evidence for improvement of educational quality.

The best way to learn we tell our students is to do something. That applies
to faculty as well. The resistance on the part of some of our colleagues is
perhaps fear of the new, that which we wern't taught, but virtually nothing
that I teach or do research in was taught to me -- at 53 I'm too old. The
first computer I used was a multi-million dollar IBM system less powerful
than today's pocket clculators and the Mac on my desktop that I write this
from is more powerful than Brock's first Burroughs mainframe 25 years ago.
It doesn't take release time to learn to use computers any more than
release time was needed when FTIR replaced dispersive instruments or AA
replaced old sparck and arc photographic spectrographs.

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 09:27:16 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper6 discussion reply to bagaddis

>I would like more information about machine graded exam questions

Machine grading offers us two important features: exactly consistent grading
for a large class and a full record of the numbers of students selecting each
answer for each question.

Partial credit multiple choice requires several passes through the grading
process, and a separate key for each point value. We gave exams with problems
worth 3, 4, 5, and 7 points, and prepared keys for 7, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point.
Making keys and being sure they are correct takes maybe two hours of the
instructor's time. Our test scoring department could grade a set of 600 exams
within 24 hours, so exam results were always posted before the next class
period. The time required was less and results were available faster than when
we used TA graders. The biggest advantage was a very big reduction in student
complaints about grading.

There is a substantial increase in time required in selecting wrong answers for
inclusion. Dr. Craig was very good at this. But with 15 (or even 10) answers
included you don't need to be perfect, some answers can be completely
arbitrary. One thing clear from our results was that about 5% of the students
were guessing randomly at most of the questions on the exams. I am pretty sure
this is a subset of the students who failed to attend classes. I am lobbying
for a bar code reader in our lecture hall so we can take attendance and monitor
for exam ringers better.

But the possibility of exam question sharing in a situation where a full record
of answers for each class is readily available is intriguing. Spending an hour
of staff time on getting a good question and set of answers is reasonable for
600 students, but it is clearly cost effective if the question can then be used
for 6000 students.

Reed Howald
"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 11:28:40 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: paper6 discussion reply to bagaddis
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed,
14 Jul 1993 09:27:16 MDT from

On Wed, 14 Jul 1993 09:27:16 MDT Reed Howald said:
>Partial credit multiple choice requires several passes through the grading
>process, and a separate key for each point value. We gave exams with problems
>worth 3, 4, 5, and 7 points, and prepared keys for 7, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point.
>Making keys and being sure they are correct takes maybe two hours of the
>instructor's time. Our test scoring department could grade a set of 600 exams
>within 24 hours, so exam results were always posted before the next class
>period. The time required was less and results were available faster than when
This is hardware and software dependent. We have one-pass grading with a
departmental machine on multiple-choice, partial credit exams, and we can
have scores posted in 1-2 hours.

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 11:35:56 EDT
From: Jim Holler

I keep forgetting that general discussion occurs later. The immediacy of
email is too compelling. My apologies.

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 10:42:56 -0500
From: "Alfred J. Lata"
Subject: 'Signatures'

Dear Colleague:
Please be sure to 'sign' your postings to the Conference. Include
affiliation. Some of the 'From' addresses are difficult to decipher.
Thanks.
Alfred J. Lata
Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas
lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 10:06:13 PST
From: "Edward H. Piepmeier"
Subject: MANUAL OR COMPUTER PLOTTING?

I have struggled with what to do in my courses with manual and
computer-generated plotting. Tom O'Haver's comment on July 9 in
the short questions about Paper 9 clarified in my mind the need
to emphasize computer-generated fitting and plotting: "These
technologies [writing, arabic numerals, printing, symbolic
notation...] are empowering; for example, any child using arabic
numerals today can perform arithmetic tasks that a senator of
ancient Rome could not."

What does a computer-generated fit and plot do that a manual plot
cannot? A least-squares fit provides results that everyone can
agree upon: a curve that is the best fit to that set of data, and
a set of uncertainties and confidence intervals in the numerical
results that are obtained using the fit. Manually drawn curves
differ with the person who draws them, and numerical values and
uncertainties obtained from the curves also differ, and are
subject to reading errors.

A computer-generated fit also provides the deviations of the data
from the fitted curve even for very close fits to the data
points. Systematic patterns in these deviations often suggest
that a different mathematical model should be used for the fit,
or may indicate that systematic errors have been made in
collecting the data. (There are even statistical (numerical)
ways to determine when an appropriate level of polynomial fit has
been reached.) Deviations are difficult to evaluate from manual
plots, especially when the fit is close to the data.

Manual plotting allows unconscious weighting of the data points.
Even a weighted least-squares fit will vary with the weights that
are given to the data points, but any disagreement about the
values for the weights encourages a more careful evaluation of
the reasons for the uncertainties in the data than might be done
otherwise.

SO WHY MANUAL PLOTTING? It is well known in the field of
education that students have several learning styles: visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic. Those who learn most easily by
kinesthetic means may learn more quickly by making manual plots.
Therefore I hesitate to remove this manual experience from my
courses. However, once they have learned the basics, they should
advance to the more empowering computer-generated fits and plots,
and learn how to interpret the information that is available from
these fits and plots. Those who learn easily by visualization
may not need a manual-plotting introduction.

For those who learn most easily by auditory means, lectures or
discussions are helpful, at least until the next step in the
computer world allows them to listen to a computer.

TEMPLATES?
Unfortunately we seem to be in a situation where most curve-
fitting programs present extraneous information (such as the
correlation coefficient, when the variables are already known to
be correlated) and leave out other information important to our
applications. This leaves it up to us to show the student how to
make that information available via spreadsheets or other
programming language. Templates are ok, but they leave the student in
dark about how to obtain this information in situations outside the
classroom.

Ed Piepmeier
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:37:12 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: 'Signatures'

My apologies. I "control-Zed" before I was finished with the message.
Barbara Gaddis
Science Learning Center
U.C.C.S.
Colorado Springs, Co
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 21:16:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS

Paper 7

INTEGRATING COMPUTERS INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASSROOM

William J. Sondgerath, Chemistry Teacher, Harrison High,
West Lafayette, Indiana (BSONDGER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: PARTICIPANTS
From: Donald Rosenthal

It seems to me that authors have generally done a much better job
answering participant's questions than other participants have done in
answering author's questions.

I think Bill Sondgerath has asked some interesting questions.
I would like to read PARTICIPANT'S ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS. I'm appending the questions to this memo. (Pages
are from my printed copy of the author's text.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONS FROM AUTHOR TO PARTICIPANTS

Questions on Page 4:
1. What tutorials have you found to be useful in teaching high
school chemistry?
2. What methods do you employ to evaluate concepts learned from
using tutorials?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 6:
1. How have you used KC? Discoverer that would be helpful for
other chemistry teachers to know?
2. Are there other databases that you find useful?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 7:
1. Do you know of any good, reasonably priced color LCD's?
2. What have you done with visualization that could enhance
chemistry instruction?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 7:
1. Does anyone require word-processed reports?
2. Could you make a contribution on how you successfully
utilize word processing in your chemistry program?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 21:
1. In what ways do you find spreadsheeting and graphing from
the computer useful?
2. Do you have any unique use of spreadsheets and graphs from
the computer?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 22:
1. What types of experiments involving interfacing do you use,
or would you like to use?
2. Do you have any advice for someone starting to use
interfacing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions on page 22:
1. Do you have a powerful gradebook?
2. Do you have any suggestions to other teachers in using such
a management tool?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Safety in Science Lab last
Questions:
1. Would software like this be valuable to you?
2. Have you found any safety software that would be useful
to other chemistry teachers?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:00:00 EDT
From: dana barry
Subject: paper7 question

What difficulties do you encounter by having three students per computer?
dana barry
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 08:59:00 EDT
From: jbarry
Subject: paper7question

There has been a trend in high schools across the country to decrease the num-
ber of "wet" lab experiments because of safety, expense etc. Do you think that
computer simulations of experiments will accelerate this trend? What effects
might this have on the abilities of chemists to work with chemicals in the real
world? jbarry
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:46:53 EDT
From: "R. T. Wilson"
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS

Don, I think most of us are a little reluctant to answer Bill Sondgerath's
questions because he is way out ahead of us. He is certainly ahead of
me, anyway. His paper was a real eye-opener. I simply did not know people
weredoing stuff like this in high school. I teach first year college
chemistry. Our computers are not in the lab, but are down the hall on another
floor of the building. We have plenty of them, but it is not very convenient
to try to use them during lab time. I have not tried any interfacing, but it
sounds like maybe I should get started on it. We do have one experiment
involving analysis of the data collected by the whole class with a spreadsheet
which is turned in the week after the experiment is done.
Most of our experiments are turned in the same day they are done, so I
don't ask students to do any word-processing. I do usually ask them to write
a couple of reports as part of their class work, and those are word-processed.
We have used KC-discoverer, but to be honest, I didn't like it too
much. I may give it another try this year.
My grade book is a Q-Pro spreadsheet which I made up myself. Sorry
Don (and Bill), but those are about all the comments I can make. After
reading your paper, I feel like the Flintstones, but I will try to do better.

Terrell Wilson
Virginia Military Institute
Lexington, Virginia 24450
{fchwilson%faculty%vmi@ist.vmi.edu}
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 10:53:02 -0400
From: Estela Blaisten-Barojas
Subject: doctoral research assistantship is available

---------------------------------------------------------
| Research opportunities leading to a Ph. D. |
| in "Computational Sciences and Informatics" |
| at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia |
| (see ad in Physics Today, May issue 1993, page 96, |
| and again in the September 1993 issue). |
|-----------------------------------------------------

Research assistantships are available in computer intensive
dynamical simulation of large atomic systems as applied to
condensed matter problems and materials sciences. Candidates
should be interested in massively parallel computer platforms
and applications of Molecular Dynamics,Monte Carlo and cellular
automata.
The stipend fluctuates, upon candidate credentials, between
$11,000 and $14,000 for the year plus waiver of full time tuition.
Requirements: Computational experience and M. S. in either
Applied Physics, Physics, Materials Sciences, Theoretical
Chemistry, Chemical or Electrical Engineering.

Other assistanships and post-doc opportunities are also available.

Interested applicants should write to Dr. E. Blaisten-Barojas,
CSI-Dep. of Physics, George Mason University, Fairfax,
VA 22030-4444. Please send vita, copy of undergraduate and
graduate transcripts, and three letters of reference when
responding. For additional information send e-mail to
eblaiste@gmu.edu.
----------
Estela Blaisten-Barojas, Professor
CSI-Physics Department FAX: (703) 993-1993
George Mason University email: EBLAISTE@gmuvax.gmu.edu
Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 993-1988
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 10:48:10 EDT
From: Allan Smith
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed,
14 Jul 1993 21:16:00 EDT from

On gradebook "programs": I believe that the best way to handle grades is
with a spreadsheet, not a dedicated gradebook program. Sure, it takes a
while to learn how to use a spreadsheet, but the general capability that
you then have at your fingertips is far more useful than any gradebook
program will ever be. For small classes, I enter student names manually
into Excel running on my Mac, then set up columns for each graded activity -
labs, quizzes, mid-terms, the paper. I put the Excel file on another Mac
so that the teaching assistants can enter grades. When I compute the final
class averages, I enter a formula with the appropriate weights and copy that
formula down a whole column. Whenever students come to my office to check
their grades, I start up Excel and look at the records. This system has
worked well for me for several years in classes of 100-200 students.
Our student information system on the university mainframe now has a capability
for downloading class-lists in a flatfile format, thus making transfer to
a spreadsheet very easy. The whole system is simple and effective.
Allan Smith, Drexel University Chemistry Department
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:22:59 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper 7 questions

>From: jbarry
>Subject: paper7question
>X-To: computer conference
>To: Multiple recipients of list CHEMCONF

>There has been a trend in high schools across the country to decrease the num-
>ber of "wet" lab experiments because of safety, expense etc. Do you think
>that
> computer simulations of experiments will accelerate this trend? What effects
>might this have on the abilities of chemists to work with chemicals in the
>real
> world? jbarry

Yes, it will accellerate the trend. But there are two other trends that we can
push harder to lessen the problem. There is an increasing trend toward
involving younger students in experimental science. A lot is being written
encouraging teachers to plan occasional experiments for a whole class. There
are many valuable and interesting things which can be done at the 5th and 6th
grade levels (before students have become disillusioned about science in
school).

A very satisfactory alternative to simulated experiments in the computer
collection of real experimental data. There are a lot of things all of us can
do to encourage this: Plan good experiments for our own students at all
levels, share experiments, share equipment, simplify good experiments for a
younger group of students, talk with general science teachers, etc.
Simulations will not hurt if the students get enough experience in collecting
real experimental data to understand the limitations of the simulations.

Let me give an example. I have built several pressure sensors to work with
Amend's interface. Two of them are in regular use in our P-chem laboratory for
gas law, vapor pressure, and kinetics experiments. However I would like to see
this equipment in use measuring sound waves in music classes or measuring
atmospheric pressure at one hour intervals over the two week period while a
teacher is covering a unit on weather.

Rosenthal wants us to answer all of the questions in paper 7. I don't see any
easy way to do that, nor what use it would be. However let me try to summarize
my thoughts with regard to the two on "interfacing".

>What types of experiments involving interfacing do you use, or would you like
to use?

For p-chem about 80% of the experiments are interfaced. We use the pressure
sensors, thermistors, block colorimeters, pH and other electrodes, and a simple
DC conductance cell. We have several good kinetics experiments including
hydrolysis by conductance, and the enzyme catalyzed decomposition of hydrogen
peroxide with dry yeast and the pressure sensor. I am not now involved in our
freshman laboratories, but they use the interfaces regularly in titrations with
pH electrodes and also in thermometric titrations (which work very well with
thermistor temperature measurements with 0.007 K standard deviation, normally
given by Amend's interfaces).
I would like to measure density of solutions from vibration frequencies, and
measure heat capacities with low power electrical heating with a new interface
which can get to a standard deviation below 0.001 K on temperature. I would
like to help develop additional experiments for all levels of science teaching.
I would like to analyze the vibration frequencies of a building or an
automobile.

>Do you have any advice for someone starting to use interfacing?

Yes. Do it and be proud. At whatever level of equipment you have, talk up its
virtues. Apple game port interfacing is good, and you can do a lot with it.
If you are working with large numbers of students, be sure that your TA's are
well trained in the use of the equipment. The most important thing is
ATTITUDE. I pushed a little too fast at the beginning, and our freshman
chemistry laboratory got very low student evaluations in some sections, those
in which the TA did not think the interfacing was a good idea.

Secondly, try to involve your students in the design of the experiment.
Computers are versatile, and interfaced experiments are even more so. You can
vary what is measured, how often, etc. If data collection is fast you can
afford to make mistakes and try again to do better. Do a class experiment.
Get the data into a spreadsheet. Work on the data analysis with real data. A
few students will understand the results quickly. Send them off to change the
experiment to get better data while the rest of the class is still working on
what the data they have means.

Third, share. Find teachers with the same or similar equipment. Trade
experiments. Share successes. Let your students see what other classes are
doing. Encourage them to try to do better, or to extend environmental sampling
into new geographical areas. If you record the temperature and pressure
changes as a cold front comes in, try to get another class 100 miles away to
take similar readings and measure the velocity of the front.

Fourth, be open minded. Try new experiments. Try new kinds of experiments.
We really don't know yet what all this new technology can do. However it will
revolutionize the teaching of science. If it did nothing more than raise the
teacher's enthusiasm we would see the results in our students.

Reed Howald
"uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu"
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 13:51:00 EDT
From: RICHARD GRAHAM
Subject: Grading - Paper 7

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York several years ago automated
the whole recording of grades. The "mainframe" computer generates the class
lists that are sent to departmental servers. These are then accessible by the
individual faculty members for the sections they are assigned. The instructors
download the necessary files from the server to their individual machines.
At the desk, the instructors can then input grades, edit grades, produce
reports in a variety of fashions (including instructor defined), weights can
be assigned to individual types of assignments (labs, quizzes, etc). Cutoff
scores for assignment of letter grades is also accomplished. The instructor can
also change individual letter grades if desired. The instructors are urged then
to upload the information to the server where it is available for the
department chair to examine. The rolls are uploaded to the server by the
instructors each time a new score is posted. Thus there are two copies of the
grade book for each instructor. At the end of the semester, when the department
chair has cleared grades, the instructor uploads the file from the departmental
server to the "mainframe". Paper is never used to transmit grades, etc. I used
the system for a couple of years and it worked marvelously.

Dick Graham
Towson State University, Department of Chemistry
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 13:48:00 EDT
From: "j.barry"
Subject: safety

The paper mentions many good ideas in regard to safety in the laboratory.
However, it is important for us to be good role models. If we walk aroundthe
lab without an apron on or with safety goggles on our foreheads we are giving
the wrong message to our students.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 13:42:37 EST
From: "William J. Sondgerath"
Subject: Re: paper7 question
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:00:00 EDT from

When the students are learning a new concept, most of the time 3 students
to a computer is useful. They are very good at helping each other. If I
have given oral instructions, one of the three more than likely will pick
up the information needed. We are fortunate to have a computer lab which
can be scheduled for individual work such problem practice (skill building).
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 13:51:20 EST
From: "William J. Sondgerath"
Subject: Re: paper7question
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 15 Jul 1993 08:59:00 EDT from

I'm sure that the more dangerous labs may be demonstrated with videodic aided
by computers, but hopefully that instead of the traditional "wet" lab may be
computer simulations will be used to show how it is done in research and
industrial labs. Microscale labs can be very useful, too. Hopefully through
a good selection process students will be able learn chemical principles with
"relatively" safe reagents if larger scale experiments are necessary.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 16:03:39 CDT
From: "Harmon B. Abrahamson"
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network
Subject: paper 7
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu,
15 Jul 1993 09:46:53 EDT from

Dear Conferees:

I would like to echo the comments by R.T. Wilson, inasmuch as many of
the applications of computers in chemistry teaching discussed in this
conference are ahead of what we at the Univ. of North Dakota are
currently able to do. Our primary limitation has been severely
shrinking equipment budgets. We were finally able to wrangle an
internal grant to get enough computers to begin to use them in chem.
major courses. I could use suggestions on how to get access to enough
hardware to use computers in our General Chemistry course with
enrollments over 600 each fall semester.

As far as gradebook programs are concerned, I use a commercial database
program (Microsoft File on Macintosh) that lets me do computed
fields. An advantage of the database approach is that I can print
a half-page summary for each student towards the end of the semester
to let them double-check their records.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harmon B. Abrahamson | BITNET: UD108726@NDSUVM1
Department of Chemistry | INTERNET: UD108726@VM1.NoDak.EDU
University of North Dakota | PHONE: (701) 777-2641
PO BOX 9024 | FAX: (701) 777-2331
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9024 |************************************
| What's nu? E/h of course!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 17:32:38 -0400
From: "Ian Swainson, AECL Research, Chalk River"

LIST LOCAL
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 23:06:12 EDT
From: David Ostfeld
Subject: Paper 7

I think some of the issues raised in this paper deserve more attention. I
have also been "wrestling" with the problem of integrating technology into
the teaching of high school chemistry. I guess the problems are always
the same, but the solutions can vary.

I have been using the "Chemical Problem Proctor" -- a program similar to the
"Introduction to General Chemistry" mentioned in the article. Actually I
have both programs, and just prefer the way the former program does things.
I have also found that students "race through their completion like a
computer game." I suppose that a program which kept score and then saved
the score in a database might help. But then you'd probably have students
figuring out how to hack the database. Sondergath counters the racing-
through problem by having the students the students complete guidelines.
I have been giving quizzes taken from the problems they were solving.
Isn't this an easier way to do it?

I don't have KC? DISCOVERER for teaching periodic trends. But I do have
CHEMISTRY WORKS. It seems like a good way to teach periodicity. Are the
programs roughly equivalent?

I also use an LCD panel for displaying the results to certain programs.
However, I am less happy with it than is Mr. Sondergath. I don't like
having to turn off the lights and pull down a screen. The alternative to
pulling down a screen is projecting on a dry erase board; but they are bit
shinier than I would like. What I think would be ideal would be a VGA to
composite video converter. I have a large-screen TV which I use for show-
ing video disks and tapes (an aspect of technology which probably deserves
a paper by itself). I would like to use this same TV for showing computer
results. (This is, after all, a class roon and not a lecture hall.) The
problem is which one to use. Despite promises to the contrary, all the
converters I have seen tend to flicker excessively. Anyone have any
experience?

Certainly one needs a spreadsheet for student use. We use Claris Works.
I think it handles graphs a bit better than Microsoft Works. (I don't
like the graphing capabilities of either program as well as I like those
of Harvard Graphics, but HG has other limitations.)

Finally there is the IBM Personal Science Lab. I would really like to
know how other people use these. It's easy to see what the temperature
probes can do. Cooloing curves and freezing point depressions are just
two obvious examples. I have been very pleased. I haven't gotten around to
ggetting pressure transducers, but I guess that will come next. But what
about
those pH probes. Is it realistic to plot pH versus time to get titration
curves. I think it would be better to just show the students a video of
a proper titration rather than that. I would like to see some more
discussion of that.

Well, I've rambled on enough. I've gotten a lot of ideas from this
conference and just wanted to put something back in.

Dave Ostfeld
Academy for the Advancement of Science & Technology
OSTFELD@PILOT.NJIN.NET

=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 04:20:16 CDT
From: Charles Fox
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS

But there are a lot of good gradebook programs that allow lots of flexibility
and work well for those of us who hate spreadsheets and the 'nightmare'they
are to set up the firest time.
I quess I believe it depends on the person--both approaches work equally well.
Charles E. Fox Chemical _______ Hygiene Officer
St. Ambrose Univ. Chemistry/ \Instructor
518 W. Locust St. Lab/ \Coordinator
Davenport,IA 52803 Work/ /--\ \Study
FAX 319-383-8791 Chem. \ \--/ /Biology
Voice -383-8921 Science \ /Department
cfox@saunix.sau.edu All \-------/around 'Gopher'
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 09:43:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Paper 8 discussion

> Monitor and whiteboards are present allowing a choice of
> presentation style (white board or direct camera
> presentation). Both formats are thus visible by both groups
> of students (classroom and distance sites). Surveys
> indicate that classroom students prefer whiteboard
> presentation while distance students prefer camera
> presentation.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between whiteboard
presentation and camera presentation. Can you explain further?

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 09:07:15 -0500
From: 01twadams@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
Subject: paper #7

Congrats to Bill for a very cogent presentation of technology in HS chem.
I also use Much of the same technology as Bill in my HS chem classes. I use
interfacing from Vernier Software, 2920 S.W. 89th St., Portland, OR 97225;
phone (503) 297-5317. Simple to use. Less expensive than most. Students
react well. Use Temp probes for small quantity heats of reaction and long
term (> 2 hours) temp studies. pH probes for potentiometric titration (let
the computer keep and plot the data). Starting to mess with pressure
sensor and thermocouple. They also have a good lab book for interfacing
computers in chem lab.
I use KC? Discoverer almost exclusively for student learning of periodic
trends. I use work sheets for "guided" learning. Works FINE.
Use of spreadsheets for analysis of quantitative data is a must. I have
even introduced some elementary statistics for analysis of whole class
data by all students. Will be giving presentation about some of this at
ChemEd '93 in Indianapolis the first week of August and at regional NSTA
in Louisville in November. Would like to talk with anyone interested.

Tom Adams
Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics & Humanities
01twadams@bsuvc.bsu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 10:30:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Paper 8 discussion

Since 1991, the University of Maryland System has been operating a
interactive compressed video network between several widely
separated sites throughout the state. To date, class offerings
include selected advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in
Chemistry, Computer Science, Business, Mechanical Engineering, and
Statistics and various educational and professional seminars. Plans
are to eventually interface to national and international compressed
video networks. Current plans include linking with the long-
distance carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint), and become a public site
for private and public entities within the State.

I have not used this facility myself, and I don't know how this
would compare with satellite communication. But it does look
like yet another way to do distance education.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 10:28:13 CDT
From: "Harmon B. Abrahamson"
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network
Subject: Re: Paper 8 discussion
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri,
16 Jul 1993 09:43:00 EDT from

A comment on Tom O'Haver's whiteboard question...

I did some interqctive video classes in the early 80's at Univ. of
Oklahoma. There we could either transmit a shot of me writing on
the board (green then, not white), or use an overhead camera focussed
on a pad (about 7 x 9 in.) on the desk . I found that the remote
students preferred the writing on the pad because it was easier to
read. This is probably similar to the comment in Paper 8.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harmon B. Abrahamson | BITNET: UD108726@NDSUVM1
Department of Chemistry | INTERNET: UD108726@VM1.NoDak.EDU
University of North Dakota | PHONE: (701) 777-2641
PO BOX 9024 | FAX: (701) 777-2331
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9024 |************************************
| What's nu? E/h of course!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 10:17:28 -0700
From: Stephen Lower
Subject: Re: paper 7

>Our primary limitation has been severely
>shrinking equipment budgets. We were finally able to wrangle an
>internal grant to get enough computers to begin to use them in chem.
>major courses. I could use suggestions on how to get access to enough
>hardware to use computers in our General Chemistry course with
>enrollments over 600 each fall semester.
[Harmon B. Abrahamson]

Our classes are about the same size, and we do it this way:
1) About one-third of our first-year students have computers
of their own, or available to them at home. This significantly
reduces the load on our on-campus facilities. Although are not
one of those institutions that "requires" students to own a
computer, many are coming to see doing so as highly desirable.
These students use the lab desribed below only for downloading
the software to diskettes that they take home and use there.

2) General-Chemistry students use a public microcomputer facility
(about 70 PC's, 20 Macs) "Assignment Lab" that is restricted
to students enrolled in courses in which computer use is required,
but is otherwise not connected with any single department.
Except perhaps in very large institutions, it is probably not
very economical for individual departments to go it alone.

Our university is as broke as many nowadays, and we are facing
severe cuts in many aspects of our operations. Fortunately, however,
our administration has seen fit to channel some of these cutbacks into
things like better computer labs in the belief that they will deliver
more and better instruction per dollar invested than what had been
cut... including, in our case, the TA budget.

Institutions that do not take this attitude and simply try to
hang on to the status quo are likely to find themselves headed
for obsolescence and possibly even eventual extinction.
----------
Steve Lower - Vancouver, Canada
Dept of Chemistry - Simon Fraser University - Burnaby BC V5A 1S6
lower@sfu.ca 604-291-3353 FAX: 604-291-3765
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 12:26:07 -0500
From: Barry Rowe
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS

Good point that we did not really answer Bill's questions, which are really
the most significant part of his fine paper -- we can all help each other
with these answers!

>QUESTIONS FROM AUTHOR TO PARTICIPANTS
>
>Questions on Page 4:
>1. What tutorials have you found to be useful in teaching high
> school chemistry?

I use the "HyperChem" Modules from USD. These are HyperCard stacks done
with NSF and Dreyfus foundation grants. They are readily available on
Macintosh ftp sites. They are very well done, very helpful, and, well,
slick -- er make that professional in appearance.

>2. What methods do you employ to evaluate concepts learned from
> using tutorials?

Currently written quizzes, but I hope to start hypermedia based quizzes
this year.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 6:
>1. How have you used KC? Discoverer that would be helpful for
> other chemistry teachers to know?
never used it

>2. Are there other databases that you find useful?
I use several HyperCard stacks about the periodic table that give lots of
useful information, and we allow our students (encourage is a better word)
to access data over Internet. We want them to access electronic databases
to find information about elements and compounds. We at the ChemViz group
are working on a program to access the Cambridge Structural Database for
3-space coordinates to use crystalographic data to generate MacMolecule
files.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 7:
>1. Do you know of any good, reasonably priced color LCD's?
none -- they are all too expensive for any of us to use without a 'sugar
daddy' to help us afford it.
>2. What have you done with visualization that could enhance
> chemistry instruction?
We concentrate our visualization on atomic and molecular theory using
Macintoshes connected to the NCSA Cray. We have the students do calculated
Atomic and Molecular orbital images and animations.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 7:
>1. Does anyone require word-processed reports?

My AP CHemistry class must word process all lab writeups -- whether wet lab
or computational lab.
>2. Could you make a contribution on how you successfully
> utilize word processing in your chemistry program?
We provide a lab and some time during class. Mostly they must do their
writeups after school and after class.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 21:
>1. In what ways do you find spreadsheeting and graphing from
> the computer useful?
Graphing energy data from our animations is useful to find bond length.
Actually we use a graphing program, not a spreadsheet (Graphical Analysis
from Vernier Software)
>2. Do you have any unique use of spreadsheets and graphs from
> the computer?
See above.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 22:
>1. What types of experiments involving interfacing do you use,
> or would you like to use?
I have done thermochemical experiements and pH titrations with Apple IIGSs
interfaced with kits from Vernier Software and HRM. The software is so
user-unfriendly that I have not done much of it in recent years.
>2. Do you have any advice for someone starting to use
> interfacing?
It is a very useful part of Chem Lab. But the overhead to learn the
programs is pretty large. The advantage is better data, and automatic time
measurement at shorter intervals.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Questions on page 22:
>1. Do you have a powerful gradebook?
I use a spreadsheet. I will probably convert to a database next year.
FileMaker Pro allows access on Windows machines as well as Macs, and it is
extremely powerful.
>2. Do you have any suggestions to other teachers in using such
> a management tool?
The most important part of using an electronic gradebook is to make it
available to students on demand. If they can access their grade and
attendance information (and only theirs), it will make them more
enlightened as to what they must do to get the grade they wish (which is
only secondary to them learning what I think they should).
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>IX. Safety in Science Lab last
>Questions:
>1. Would software like this be valuable to you?
yes
>2. Have you found any safety software that would be useful
> to other chemistry teachers?
>no

barry
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Barry E. Rowe browe@ncsa.uiuc.edu
NCSA ChemViz group
240 CAB, 152 E. Springfield Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820

ANY PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF
PHYSICS OBVIOUSLY INVOLVES
MATTER, AND IS THEREFORE
CHEMISTRY.
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 16:08:16 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion evaluation

>
> This type of exam question was developed by Dr. B. P. Mundy, Dr. A. C. Craig,
> and myself in 1989. I will show you a 10 choice example from 1991:
>
> 10. (7 points) Determine the empirical formula of the compound with the
> following percentage composition: 52.14% C, 13.13% H, and 34.73% O.
>
> a. CHO b. CH3O c. C2H2O d. C2H5O
>
> e. C2H6O f. C3HO6 g. C3H6O
>
> h. C4H12O2 i. C4H13O2 j. C5HO3
>
> Of course on the actual exam we could use subscripts. Ten item multiple
> choice
> forms are available commercially. 15 item forms will be printed and graded
> if
> we create the demand. Student results on this particular question were:
>
> answer number of students points awarded
> a 5 0
> b 14 0
> c 4 0
> d 7 0
> e 239 7
> f 35 2
> g 4 0
> h 29 5
> i 110 3
> j 58 0
>
> Who is interested in sharing machine graded exam questions for the evaluation
> of teaching methods?
I have two questions about your question?

1. Who has determined that 15 multiple choice answers make for a better
question? In fact I chose "h" which is according to your scale incorrect
provided that you said in class that "empirical formula" means the least common
denominator. So it comes down to some memorization and regugitation and some
tricks. Having come from a chemical engineering background but teaching physical
chemistry and food engineering in an applied biplogical discipline " food
science, I had first gotten trapped into what I call the cook and look method of
teaching and evaluating science. It makes for easier grading. However after a
few years I went back to the way I was taught in that I now use in class open
book exams and or take home exams. The students feel more comfortable and you
can do more integrative prblems. For example in the above, after the first part
you can then give them some information about the reliability of the analysis
(eg the error on H analysis is 13  5 %, that it reacts to with Fehlings
solution (thus it has a reducing group) and then list the mp or bp range and
ask them for the real formula, so they get exercise in using the CRC Handbook.
That was my most used text at MIT and I took it to almost all my exams, why
don't we still do that today. Questions like this build them into using their
knowledge, however if this is just at the start then it has to be simpler, which
is what I guess you are doing. I still feel open bok is better and by the way, I
found no difference in the average score in closed vs open books but the
students feel more comfortable. Those that spend most time hunting to find an
answer are the ones how score low since the good students still memorize key
factors such as the MW of the simple molecules. I also use what I call validity
statements which requires short discussion answers, for example :
Dicuss the validity of the following statements:

a. Dr. Franks says that using the term water activity to describe the vapor
pressure of water surrounding a food in a package is incorrect since foods are
never at true equilibrium and the definition of activity suggest equilibrium."
(The point here is when are we ever at true equilibrium)

b. A break in the Arrhenius plot indicates that the experimenter probably had
poor temperature control. (The point here is that their may be a phase change ,
eg freexing, or a glass->rubber transition.

2. At what number of students do you have to go to multiple choice. I used to
teach a class of 450-500 and used multiple choce. It gave a wide distribution
but I was never satisfied with it. I had it machine graded. With few TAs or RAs
that is the simple route, but why not design take home exams with groups. If
some get by on the work of others so be it, perhaps the experience of a group is
the best experience for them. In the food and drug field, no one works on their
own, there are always product teams, and team work is required. Chem Eng has
always done this and so why can't chemists or food scientists. One approach I
use at the higher level is to give them a poor published research paper in
which they can manipulate the data to gert a better outcome or to criticize the
methods. I also use ads which make exagerated claims for physical properties
(easy to find in the food and ag field) Perhaps we need a new Chem-Conf on
shifting ecvaluation paradigms.

One last general poin, on the spreadsheet vs canned written programs. Both work,
but I hate to see too much emphasis put on problems where they have to devise a
new spreadsheet each time, rather I like to see thought problems where the use
the programs to create the numbers that can then be used to answer the question.
I always put in some incorrect data and some irrelevant data to see how they
handle it, they know I DO this from the first class. As an example homework
style I use is the boos just saw this data and thinks this product X can be used
to improve our product Y to be more competive and wants you to detyermine if we
should incorporate it. The answer is open ended and I make them work in groups
with a new group manager responsible for the report each time. There is some
poor data in the data, problably because it was recorded wrong sometime
intentionally or unitentionally. They then have to learn to make decisions. I
tell them at the start that the final answer is not as important as them
recording the heuristics they used in solving the problem. Many students don't
like to do this but it does help them to learn. The data then can be run through
the canned programs with and withou t the outliers to see what difference it
makes in the final conclusions, rather than having to spend a lot of time to set
up the spread sheet. On the other hand a spread sheet is useful where one wants
to do a repetitive calculations for many values between an upper and lower limit
to see the influence on another value. A good example of this is in heat
transfer, ie when does the thichness of insulation on a pipe with a cool fluid
inside flowing at constant temperature get so large that you end up heating it
by the outside air. Essentially a double plot of h2rL(Tp-Tair) and k/r vs
radius is needed. This is a good spreadsheet and graphing exercise and they see
the value of spreadsheets and graphically examining the data.

Dr Ted Labuza tplabuza@EPX.CIS.UMN.EDU or tplabuza@staff.tc.umn.edu
Department of Food Science & Nutrition
136 AMLMS U of Minnesota
St Paul, MN 55108
Home Fax 612-633-0627
Voice 612-624-9701 UM Fax 612-625-5272

"SURFING THE WAVES OF CYBERSPACE"
___
||
| \|
|__|
|
---|----
/ \
|___/__/\_____/
\ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\ /
\ /\ / \/ \ /\/ \ /
\/ \/ \/ \/

Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once". Except in
my office which exists in a time warp!!!
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 19:04:42 -0400
From: Judith Faye Rubinson
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion

A number of people have expressed dissatisfaction with relying on graphics
packages, saying that students don't learn the basics of graphing and
statistics. I find that requiring students to have sensible ranges and interim
ticks
on
graphs means that they must master the basics of graphing, even when using a
graphics package. With regard to curve fitting, choosing the type of fit gives
them a feel for different types of functional variations. Hurrah for statistics
packages of all sorts!!!
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 22:05:23 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short question response-Fox

Charles Fox inquires as to the cost to students(companies).... Tuition is
$500/credit hour compared to $650/hr on site.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:58:05 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 discussion- O'Haver ,Abrahamson

Tom asked a question about whiteboard vs. camera. I've been tied up in a
teachers workshop here today...hence the late night response. But Abrahamson
is describing precisely the system we use and the response of the students is
the same. Tom figured out what I did this morning- sent responses to
listserv. It didn't like that and so "flushed" me- such a descriptive word. I
then figured out what I did wrong ( you have to flush me to get my attention).
So I sent the responses to chemconf. When it didn't bounce themI thought they
had gone through- I figured the right hand of the system didn't know what the
left had done. Apparently it did.So here they come again I hope.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 22:01:16 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short question response- Zielinski

Theresa Zielinski
1. The statistics cited are partly from
Future Supply amd Demand in Academic Institutions Porceedings of 1990
Workshop: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, Ed. B.
Vetter, Washington, DC, March, 1990. and
Chemical and Engineering News, 69(20), 29-30, May 20, 1991

On checking these I find my approximations a little rough- in 1979 the BS
grads in chemistry were 11,501. The latest number is an estimate based on a
survey of sophomores in 1991 which yielded a number of 5200 for
1993(unpublished but by ACS). My colleague is still looking for the source
off the numbers of students
interested in going on in graduate work- oobviously an ACS source (Heindel is
well connected there) and I will send it on when he gets it.

2. Nonchemists doing chemistry is supported by anecdotal evidence only.

3.I will send you the P-chem syllabus under separate cover but it is the first
P-chem course taken by chemistry and chemical engineering majors.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 22:04:14 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short question response-Coe

Doug Coe,
1. Concerning Lehigh's course numbering scheme....I'm not sure it makes any
sense but you probably refer to the mix of 300 and 400. Strictly graduate
courses at Lehigh are 400 level (undergrads are 000-399). For many years it
was difficult for undergrads to take 400 courses and often a graduate course
was numbered 300 to facilitate this.

2. There are a number of sub-disciplines at Lehigh, of course, whose courses
are not offered on satellite. Organic and analytical were chosec in
consultation with the charter coompanise. In the fall we will begin the
addition of six additionsl courses to support a concentration which can be
called bio-organic. Nothing further is planned although we are looking at
short courses.

3. The sequences required by prerequisites are:
358< 458r< 451, 455 with 458s and 394 nnot requiring prerequisites and
332< 432,433, 488
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 22:02:23 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short question response- Long

George Long raises the following subjects:
1. Concerning using interactive computer worksheets( mathematica) instead of a
satellite link... Two points: The lehigh Board of Trustees has the requirement
that courses be live with two-way communication live. I'm not familiar with
mathematica but I wouldn't know how this would be practical for a lecture
format course which most of these coures are.

2Concerning the types of research projects selected--- The research aspects of
the program are just beginning. But based on past (limited) experience with
off-site research by part-time local students and the early returns of this
program, projects arise from the student and professor having a shared
research interest and a high mutual interest factor.I fully expect some
broadening of research efforts by flexible faculty because they can explore
areas for free- manpower and supplies come free for researchof interest. IN
this day of hard to get funding this could be like dying and going to heaven
if it is work that fits your own current interests or leads in promising new
directions. Some instrumentation capabilities are mmore specialized at the
company site and represents an opportunity to the faculty. But it's very early.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:59:54 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short questions response-Rosenthal

Don Rosenthal asks questions on the following:
1a.Courses meet either 3 times a week for 50 minutes or twice for 75 minutes-
our standard arrangement. Most are going with the twice a week format.
1b. About how much time is spent in lecture, problem solving, discussion it is
difficult to generalize but... The average is probably about 90% lecture and
10% interaction of some kind. Some courses becooooome very interactive, up to
50% but the majority are not excpt in response to questions. About half the
courses involve extensive homework, half rely only on exams. Homework is
Fed-exed. Virtually all courses have a text but usually involve outside
reading, articles, etc. Extensive handouts are used in the courses which are
not or marginally textbook based.

1c. Off-site questions come like a voice from heaven- quite startling, really.
They are screened and queued by a satellite technician but essentially they
just arrive.

1d.On-site to offsite student ratios are as follows for example:
10:18, 2:23, 40:20, 4:6. All over the block with a higher number of satellite
students predooominating. The big factor is how many on-site students there
are and since Lehigh has a typical 15 student entering graduate class, that
tends to be small unless undergrads are in the class. With 2or 3 students in
the class I tend to talk to the camera, with 10 students in the classroom I
tend to talk to the class.
1e. Concerning course evaluations. Satellite students prefer data presented
directly while on-site students prefer board work. Everyone likes prepared
handouts of material but satellite students very strongly- they can'tlook over
at another section of the board so getting behind is more serious- the camera
gives them tunnel vision. Material taken from the mmonitor can't be seen
again-except on tape. The satellite students are significantly older- more
aggressive and more mature, even in their judgements. On-site students are
quieter and more attentive in televised than in local- only classes...Big
Brother is watching you syndrome.

2. Lehigh requires synchronous teaching (live), a Trustee rule so taped
courses as the standard would not be allowed under the present situation. The
tapes are used quite a bit both on-site and off-site for missed classes and to
review material. I think it is great for students and that we should do it for
all courses. I realize that potentially it could(probably?) occur that
students would skip lectures and could create problems but I'd love to try it
and see how much problem it is because tapes help students a lot. I think
that we are in a partially asynchronous mode and would like to go further.

3.E-mail is used outside of class although students tend to use phone and
voice-mail(including cooooonference calls) more. I think your suggestion of a
listserv is excellent because out of class questions should ideally be open to
everyone. I wonder if there's a phone conversation equivalent.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 11:20:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 8 - Discussion

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 10:30:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Paper 8 discussion

> Since 1991, the University of Maryland System has been operating a
> interactive compressed video network between several widely
> separated sites throughout the state. To date, class offerings
> include selected advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in
> Chemistry . . . .
> Tom O'Haver
> U. of Maryland
* Which graduate and undergraduate courses in chemistry have been offered?
* What enrollments has the University had in these chemistry courses?
* Are these courses taught as part of an on-site course?
* DO ANY OTHER PARTICIPANTS TEACH AT SCHOOLS WHERE SUCH COURSES ARE
* TAUGHT? IF SO, PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FORMAT AND CONTENT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:59:54 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 short questions response-Rosenthal

> 1d.On-site to offsite student ratios are as follows for example:
> 10:18, 2:23, 40:20, 4:6.
* It must be strange lecturing to two students and having 23 remote
* students participating.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Does Lehigh have a long-term commitment to the Satellite M.S. program
* or is this viewed as a short-term experiment?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* In my opinion it is unfortunate that you are locked in to LIVE
* courses. If your figure of 90% lecture and 10% discussion is
* typical, it seems to me that asynchronous courses might provide
* as much or more discussion and attract more participants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 15:31:01 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion

In message Judith Faye Rubinson writes:
> A number of people have expressed dissatisfaction with relying on graphics
> packages, saying that students don't learn the basics of graphing and
> statistics. I find that requiring students to have sensible ranges and
> interim
> ticks
> on
> graphs means that they must master the basics of graphing, even when using a
> graphics package. With regard to curve fitting, choosing the type of fit
> gives
> them a feel for different types of functional variations. Hurrah for
> statistics
> packages of all sorts!!!
>
I could not agree more. I believe that the student should learn manual graphing
at the very basic level early on and then use computer graphics. They have come
a long way since the cryptic days of main frame graphing with all the control
codes and cards. One thing it eliminates to some degree is the computatiuonal
errors especially with semi-log plots. I always require students to do both ln Y
xs X and a semilog plot of Y vs X and calculate the slope for the true
exponential expression ie y = Ae^(sX). This helps them to understand logs vs ln,
and what a semi-log plot is. It is amazing how many leave out the factor of
2.303. Some 10-15 years ago there was a paper in J Phys. Chem, I think, which
reviewed about 10 years of kinetics papers and found that ~20% had forgotten the
2.3 in the calculation of Activation energy, presumably these were from hand
drawn plots. I can't find the reference but will look. This same error was done
in a classic review of vitamin degradation in the food science literature in the
50's, and the wrong Ea value was used for 15 years in textbooks until a
colleague of mine and I wrote a new chapter and I reviewed the old lit and found
the error. We need both methods but the software packages should eliminate some
of the errors. If used as noted above, it is like hand drawing and prevents some
very stupid graphs from being published, for example someone samples at 61,
132, 184 and 206 hours and that is the tick marks on the X axis. This was quite
common in somew of the older literature.

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 15:31:06 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Paper 6 discussion
From: "Ted Labuza"
Date: Sun, Jul 18, 1993 9:35 AM
To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion evaluation

In message <0096F98D.18E0F7A0.5573@happy.uccs.edu> writes:
> I am interested in the concept of the take-home or open-book exams and have
> integrated quizzes in this format to my general chem classes. I found that
> many of the students' papers were identical. Cooperative learning can
> be successful. But how do you stop the blatent copying? Do you do all
> takehoem/open book tests?
> Barbara Gaddis
> U.C.C.S.
> Colorado Springs, CO
>

I only do the all take home exams at the graduate student level and design the
exam such that despite the mathematical calculations, the written discussion of
the results is the critical part. I state emphatically at the start that any
plagerism will be dealt with an F in the course, this is agreed on by the
students by signing a form on the front of the exam, they must use my exam form.
It states " I agree that the written material turned in is my own work and I
have received no help from anyone unless specified by the instructor". Generally
I note that they can get help from anyone other than course mates as that is
what they would do in the real world on a job. I have had only one case of a
violation of this in the past ten years. On homework I let them work together
and then hand in their own work, that in many cases is the same and if someone
did not do anything but copy I will find out when I give an in-class open book
exam. I keep the homewortk at no more than 40% of the grade and thus if homework
is the building process then the exams and class discussion are the evaluation.
In this way I get away from the numerical grades of a 30-50 being a A. Generally
I grade at the grad and undergrad level with a A=85%, B=75%, C=60% and D=50%. It
seems to have worked well. By the way, I gave a paper last week at the annual
meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists, a 25,000 professional
membership. My paper was on the logistic hurdles of introducing quantitative
skills into food science courses because of its inherent biological nature. I
would be willing to share the Power Point slide set with anyone if you leave me
an email message. I intend to write it up in the next few months. Or I can ftp
it to the Maryland gopher site.

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 08:22:00 EDT
From: Nava Ben Zvi <201226@UMDD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: paper 6 discussion
In-Reply-To: Message received on Fri, 16 Jul 93 19:07:44 EDT

regarding ted Labuza"s comment:
are you THe Ted Labuzah of the World of Chemistry series?
please tell me
Nava Ben Zvi
201226@umdd
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 09:33:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 8 - Discussion
In-Reply-To: <9307181522.AA22330@umd5.umd.edu>

Re: interactive compressed video network

> Which graduate and undergraduate courses in chemistry have been offered?
> What enrollments has the University had in these chemistry courses?
> Are these courses taught as part of an on-site course?

To my knowledge the only chemistry course that has been offered
on the U. of Maryland Interactive Video network is Chem 723: Marine
Geochemistry, a graduate class with a rather small enrollment.
Undrgraduate classes have been offered in several other departments,
but not chemistry.

The reason this particular course if offered is that it involves
faculty and graduate students who are working at the Chesapeake
Biological Lab At Solomons Island, Maryland, and Horn Point
Environmental Lab, Cambridge, Maryland, whcih are some distance from
the main campus at College Park where the chemistry department
resides.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
College Park
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 12:48:49 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 discussion- O'Haver questions

Tom asks which courses have been offered. The full course offerings are listed
in the table of the analytical and organic concentrations and the first
semester P-chem course. We are still in the first time thru so not all courses
have been offered yet. So that means 358,458r, 458s, 451, 394, 432,332,
475,433 and and advanced polymers and a clinical course. Also the p-chem.
On-site students take these courses- they are simply our regular courses
beamed up Scottie. A few presentation changes due to tv but basically
unchanged in content or when we offer them(ie what semester). We limited the
satellite enrollment to 80 students and originally were offering two courses
in each concentration which works out to 20 stucents per course if they take
only one per semester and that is just about what we find. As we go to a one
course per track format then I expect that we will have about 40 per course.
K.J. Schray
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 15:29:06 -0400
From: Richard Jarosch
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS
In-Reply-To: your message of Fri Jul 16 12:26:07 -0500 1993

Regarding the author's question on gradebooks; one that I have used for a
number of years and highly recommend is GradeGuide by Jon Kane, 2814 Regent
St., Madison, WI 53705-5218. It is shareware, in its 4th version, and costs
about $40 to register (much less for bulk purchases/site licenses). It should
be available by ftp (although I haven't tried) from one of the Internet
shareware servers, or of course from the author at the address above.

rjarosch@uwcmail.uwc.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 15:57:51 EDT
From: "KEITH J. SCHRAY"
Subject: Paper 8 discussion Rosenthal question

Don, First of all it is strange to have class with 2 live and 23 remote, but
it's better than 0 live and no feedback at all. I did that when taping a
session on research interests that we sent them for information purposes by
videotape. Lehigh is definitely in this for the long haul. The administration
is very much behind this effort and 90% of the faculty are in favor. The
biggest questions center on the research component and how the matches,
secrecy aspects, quality of research will work out.We are adding another
concentration and 6 more courses and have the sequence planned to the year
2000. I agree that being able to go to a mix a live and asynchronous would be
good. Maybe we'll wear them down. That was a rule created for circumstances
different from this. We just need to move them( trustees) to a mixed format
with some required % of live.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 16:34:39 -0400
From: "Keith M. Wellman"
Subject: Re: PAPER 7 - ANSWERS TO AUTHOR'S QUESTIONS

Regarding gradebook software, we also use "GradeGuide" by Jon Kane for our 600
or so General Chem students. The person, Prof Bill Purcell, who uses it is
very pleased with it.

Keith Wellman
KWELLMAN@UMIAMI
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 10:00:39 -0400
From: Paul Edwards
Subject: Paper 9 - Brooks

Professor Brooks' paper does indeed have much food for thought; it has
certainly had my head spinning for days.

I suspect all would agree that the computer is a tool which has
dramatically changed the way scientists function. Certainly education
in science ought to reflect the computer as a tool of the profession.
Indeed, as Professor Brooks argues, we should act as models using
computers has much as possible as would a professional chemist. I would
go further by claiming that professional applications can be integrated
very naturally into the curriculum, and I suspect most of us
participating in this conference are already doing as much of that as we
can.

I also plead guilty to not having as much training as I wish.
Unfortunately, I, like so many others functioning under tightening
budgets, am not optimistic about the results of a search for release
time. However, I think this situation can be turned around into a very
healthy learning situation for both faculty and students. We can learn
from them!

Do faculty have to be molecular mechanics experts before asking advanced
students to do a modeling exercise described in J. Chem. Ed.? Or, can
we give them the software and the article, and let them figure it out?
Isn't that what we are training them to be able to do? Isn't that what
an employer or a graduate adviser is going to expect of them in the not
too distant future?

Finally, I am torn by Professor Brooks' closing thought that the
existence of a tool is evidence the skill is not worthy of being taught,
particularly with respect to first year chemistry.

We certainly do ask especially non-majors to do some calculations they
may never see again. Maybe students would focus more on the concepts if
we took the emphasis off the calculations by providing computational
tools. Equation solvers could be used to avoid some of the simplifying
assumptions routinely made. CHEMED-L readers need only recall the
recent discussion of the Henderson-Hasselbach equation!

But I don't believe the existence of a tool pedagogically negates the
need for that skill! I am not excited about balancing equations
using numerical methods which mask oxidation-reduction chemistry and the
notions of half-reactions which follow. I suspect we would be giving in
to students with weak math skills if we were to provide tools for
rearranging PV=nRT.

I hope we don't make the same mistake with computers that we did with
calculators. That battle was over a long time ago, so I'm not trying to
restart it, but some of us aren't too happy about the outcome. How many
of us deep down inside are a little sick when a student grabs a
calculator to divide 25 by 2 and multiply that result by 100? And it
isn't just us old fuddy-duddies; a young whipper-snapper in our physics
department requires students in his modern physics class to do
calculations by hand. The appropriateness of the tool must be
considered! I don't think it is unfair to ask a student to use a
Periodic Table to calculate the molar mass of sulfuric acid instead of a
computer.

Paul Edwards
edwardsp@evax.edinboro.edu
Edinboro University of PA

=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 16:19:12 MSD
From: "Laser Chemistry Dept., MSU"
Subject: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

This paper is very interesting for any educator.
David W. Brooks shares his wide practical experience which has
great value not only in the USA but also, say, in Russia.
The author raises some questions that hardly have a unique answer
but makes one to think a lot on the problem. Let me comment out
only one point.

David W. Brooks writes in his paper:
> The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the seriousness of
> the training problem. We have to begin with ourselves, not
> our students.

One can hardly disagree with this statement. But his conclusion
("Ask For Released Time!") is more doubtful. Yes, computers and their
software are simply more powerful tools like calculators. Almost every
new tool changes the world around us. Phones changed it, and TV,
and now computers... Did we need a special released time to train
using TV? or calculators?

It seems to me that efforts made in training faculty rarely produce
sufficient outcome. When an educator is ready to accept new tools
(s)he accepts it and begins to use. Otherwise either the tool is not
good enough or the person has come to its limit in accepting new knowledge.

Vassili S. Lyutsarev
Chemical faculty, Moscow state university, Russia.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 09:40:24 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

In response to Vassili S. Lyutsarev's comments about faculty release time, I
agree to a certain extent: when the faculty wants to learn to use the
technology they will do so, regardless of having release time or not. To set
aside special release time to learn a task has not seemed to work. But I
feel an important part of learning any new technology is having resources
around to ask questions. We are all capable of learning; but when it comes
to new tasks frequently there is no one around to ask for help. How do the
rest of you handle teaching faculty how to use computers, software programs,
etc.? Do you have an academic computing department that is useful here? We
are fortunate in our department to have two computer junkies who love
learning and teaching others. Without their help, I fear the rest of us
would be lost. Do you have any suggestions for others - how do you get the
help you need in order to master a skill? (Many companies do have
technical support. But the quality of this support and the time it takes
to obtain this support varies greatly from company to company. I was
thinking of in-house support.)
Barbara Gaddis
U.C.C.S.
Colorado Springs, CO
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 09:54:42 -0600
From: "David A. Boyles"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

I appreciate hearing from and respect Vassili S. Lyutsarev's opinion.
Among the three-pronged responsibilities of research, teaching, and
campus committee work (not to mention all the odd jobs of faculty
in chemistry "service" departments at an engineering college), however,
there must yet be a place for professional development of faculty.

Whether journal reading or learning new computer skills is involved,
both require time. If a department is to have faculty capable of
training students, the administration must value the professional
development of its faculty and demonstrate this value by allowing time
for professional development. In this context I agree with
Brooks that we must train ourselves.

David A. Boyles
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
Rapid City, SD 57701
dboydboyles@silver.sdsmt.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 10:24:26 -0700
From: Stephen Lower
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks

Congratulations to David Brooks for a stimulating and
thought-provoking paper. I share Paul Edwards' difficulty
in agreeing with the last part of the paper, but perhaps
we are reading more into it than David intended.

The problem I see with faculty training is that only a
minority seem to be "trainable"; witness the great
difficulty many institutions face in trying to get
faculty members into sessions intended to help them
communicate more effectively in the lecture hall.
Perhaps what is most needed is a liberal early-retirement
policy!

Ultimately, I believe that those who feel an overwhelming
need to communicate something will find the tools and take
the time to do so; this is why painters paint, composers
compose, authors write books. I'm not sure that "training"
authors to write better textbooks will have any more
lasting effect than training them to write hypercard stacks
or CAI programs. Let us by all means provide encouragement
and guidance for those who wish to do these things. Ultimately,
however, I am not sure that it is such a bad thing that the
some personal (and perhaps even professional) sacrifice is
often needed to bring creative effort to fruition. It forces
us to ask ourselves every day, is this really worth doing,
and are we doing it the best way we know how?

Anyway, a great paper!
----------
Steve Lower - Vancouver, Canada
Dept of Chemistry - Simon Fraser University - Burnaby BC V5A 1S6
lower@sfu.ca 604-291-3353 FAX: 604-291-3765
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 13:56:25 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks

Paul Edwards is right when he writes that:
>
>I suspect all would agree that the computer is a tool which has
>dramatically changed the way scientists function. Certainly education
>in science ought to reflect the computer as a tool of the profession.
>Indeed, as Professor Brooks argues, we should act as models using
>computers has much as possible as would a professional chemist. I would
>go further by claiming that professional applications can be integrated
>very naturally into the curriculum, and I suspect most of us
>participating in this conference are already doing as much of that as we
>can.
>
>I also plead guilty to not having as much training as I wish.
>Unfortunately, I, like so many others functioning under tightening
>budgets, am not optimistic about the results of a search for release
>time. However, I think this situation can be turned around into a very
>healthy learning situation for both faculty and students. We can learn
>from them!
>
>Do faculty have to be molecular mechanics experts before asking advanced
>students to do a modeling exercise described in J. Chem. Ed.? Or, can
>we give them the software and the article, and let them figure it out?
>Isn't that what we are training them to be able to do? Isn't that what
>an employer or a graduate adviser is going to expect of them in the not
>too distant future?
>
Right On. Why shouldn't we learn from our undergrads in the same manner as
we learn from our grads. If we adopted the leave proposal, everyone would
be taking a research sabbatical and a computer leave such that there would
be nobody left to teach. A training leave will leave the person who
required it trained for the product or computer that was out of date by the
time they got to the point of having to use it. Unless you are committed to
continual self training on computing techniques and software, a leave will
not help -- I've seen it in seeing what happens to colleagues who have
tried this vs my view that faculty members have the same capability as our
students, and we tell prospective employers that we've trained our students
to learn.

A leave for afaculty member or they don't use computers is a cop-out. That
suggests a faculty colleague that I'd rather not have.

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 12:52:24 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper9 discussion

I agree that this is a good, thought provoking paper.

I agree with the strong thread in the discussion that released time is not the
answer.

Someone raised the point about calculating the molecular weight of sulfuric
acid. This is a good example. We can all agree that freshman students should
be able to do this with nothing more than the chemical formula and a periodic
table. But in practice if I needed it I would use a computer program that I
wrote myself called PERIOD which has in it current atomic weights of all the
elements and which can go on to mole fraction calculations for the three or
four materials it has just gotten molecular weights for. One needs the
fundamental technique if only to test the computer programming, and one needs
the convenience and accuracy of good computer tools as well.

I would be happy if all the students here got B's or better in freshman
chemistry using Brook's stoichiometry program.

At least in physical chemistry, offering the students a good tool enables me to
cover more material better. I used to spend a lot of time on getting values
for equilibrium constants from tables of the Planck function (Also called the
free energy function). Now I show them how to use a program which takes a data
table and calculates all the thermodynamic variables for the materials in the
table at any temperature and pressure specified. They can use H and S, G, or
Planck function values to get the equilibrium constants, it doesn't matter. No
interpolation is needed any longer, since data files with good heat capacity
equations are better than the JANAF tables. I insist that the students be able
to test the computer output against the differential expressions, since this is
needed to check the programming: Show that dG/dT = -S. However it appears
that integral calculus is no longer a needed skill (except us programmers need
to be able to program integrals of polynomials). The program is PHF.EXE.
Since I have used it in courses here, I am sure Montana State University will
claim it. I can ask if they will let me send it to you free.

I certainly agree with released time for programmers. My personal situation is
that I would have no hope of persuading my administration to grant released
time for programming. On the other hand they think they can save money by
persuading me to retire. I have agreed, and in the near future I will have
some programming time. I need to know exactly what you want. I know the three
most basic requirements:

1. Good programs.
2. Very easy to use. One should aim for something a fifth grader can learn to
use on her own in less than two hours. A ten page manual is acceptable.
3. Growing. There must be a procedure for updating and improving the programs
we use in teaching. One possibility is shareware.
Sincerely,
Reed Howald
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 15:42:20 -0400
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

Jack Martin Miller writes;

If we adopted the leave proposal, everyone would be taking a research
sabbatical and a computer leave such that there would be nobody left
to teach. A training leave will leave the person who required it trained
for the product or computer that was out of date by the time they got
to the point of having to use it. Unless you are committed to
continual self training on computing techniques and software, a leave will
not help.

I agree, but continual self training takes time as well. Given a limited
amount time, it will always be necessary to cut corners when applying
computer technology to the classroom. Perhaps we can all agree that, as
David Boyles says " There must yet be a place for professional development of
faculty. " and as a response to the significant change communication
technology has created in education, more time should be allocated to faculty
for this endeavour than has been typical at smaller universities.

Finally, Paul Edwards Writes;

Do faculty have to be molecular mechanics experts before asking advanced
students to do a modeling exercise described in J. Chem. Ed.? Or, can
we give them the software and the article, and let them figure it out?
Isn't that what we are training them to be able to do? Isn't that what
an employer or a graduate adviser is going to expect of them in the not
too distant future?

I agree, and I have actually done this. It was possible to learn more about
the software (MOBY), and was a worthwhile experience. However the students
perceived this method as a lack of organization on my part. Several unhappy
students mentioned that Dr. Long was helpful, but seemed to be learning the
software as he went (actually as they experienced difficulties I had never
encountered). They felt I should have anticipated their problems or have
been able to fix them easily. While I can rationalize this by saying that
the students will be better off in the long run, I still have bad student
evaluations for this lab.

George Long
Indiana Univ. of PA
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 16:16:56 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: paper9 discussion

I am very interested in your program PHF.EXE and would like to try a copy in
the PCHEM class/

Barbara Gaddis
U.C.C.S.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 19:57:18 EDT
From: Allan Smith
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue,
20 Jul 1993 16:19:12 MSD from

I too have noticed that my chemistry colleagues learn from each other about
new software of potential use in their teaching. A few key staff people
are critical - the Arts& Sciences' college Electronics Shop head keeps us
up to date on our local area network and its email system (this has really
cahnged the way we communicate, and has made us a bit more civil towards
each other than in face-to-face faculty meetings). Noticeably absent from
the list of people helpful in learning about computer software are the
computer science faculty; somehow the notion of applied computing is
beneath them. But I too have gnawing doubts about time allocation whenever
I am attracted - or compelled - to learn a new package or classroom
presentation technology. Word processing has substantially increased for me
the number of incomplete research manuscripts with which I am dealing.
And a Macintosh security package called Fileguard, which was installed in our
MAc cluster in the p. chem lab to make system maintenaance easier for the
three faculty who do it, has now become a major obstacle because someone
tried to outsmart it. Fileguard retaliated by making the hard disk almost
impossible to access. Thank God for tech support numbers.
Allan Smith, Chemistry Dept. Drexel University
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 05:07:46 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

Barbara Gaddis writes:
> In response to Vassili S. Lyutsarev's comments about faculty release time, I
> agree to a certain extent: when the faculty wants to learn to use the
> technology they will do so, regardless of having release time or not. To set
> aside special release time to learn a task has not seemed to work. But I
> feel an important part of learning any new technology is having resources
> around to ask questions. We are all capable of learning; but when it comes
> to new tasks frequently there is no one around to ask for help. How do the
> rest of you handle teaching faculty how to use computers, software programs,
> etc.? Do you have an academic computing department that is useful here? We
> are fortunate in our department to have two computer junkies who love
> learning and teaching others. Without their help, I fear the rest of us
> would be lost. Do you have any suggestions for others - how do you get the
> help you need in order to master a skill? (Many companies do have
> technical support. But the quality of this support and the time it takes
> to obtain this support varies greatly from company to company. I was
> thinking of in-house support.)
> Barbara Gaddis
> U.C.C.S.
> Colorado Springs, CO
>
The Univ of Minnesdota has a large CIS department puts on continuous short
courses that help to bring people up to speed, and a newsletter that has
software reviews to let us know what is out thereww. They also have a lab where
we can go to try new software and hardware, so there is much support. However I
find the best support is one on one with someone who has tried a new tool. I am
one of those computer junkies that likes to help others come up to speed. If
everyone is in he fast lane then we all do a better job. In response to another
question, I like the idea of forced early retirement for poor teachers, but with
tenure it just won't work. When tenure is basically controlled by research,
teaching will always play seciond fiddle. We still need a better negative reward
than allowing the poor teachers not to teach and then adding the burden on the
good teachers, especially in this era of reduced support.

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:45:31 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: <9307201829.AA03905@umd5.umd.edu>

Jack Martin Miller writes:

> A training leave will leave the person who required it trained
> for the product or computer that was out of date by the time
> they got to the point of having to use it.

For this reason I believe that it is important to stress
conceptual knowledge of the general principles more than
procedural knowledge of specific products. Granted, you have to
have some procedural knowledge to get things to work, but in the
long run it's the conceptual knowledge of general principles
that lasts. The important thing is to realize that there IS a
conceptual base to computer operation and applications; it's not
ALL procedural. You might not think so, looking at all the
books that stress procedure. Once you begin to understand the
principles, then you can begin to contruct your own procedures
without depending on detailed and impossible-to-remember
instructions for everything. Modern computing environments have
demonstrated how a common conceptual base extending across all
applications and peripheral devices can greatly simplify
learning new programs and adding new hardware.

What are the important concepts? Here's my list: The concept of
a file and file type; the difference between a text and a binary
file; between RAM and disk memory; between an application and a
document; between a text editor, a word processor, and a desktop
publishing (page layout) program; between a tab stop and a tab
character; between spreadsheet and equation solvers; between a
symbolic algebra program and a numeric analysis program; between
plain text and formatted text; between a compiler and an
interpreter; between machine language and assembly language;
between serial and parallel; between digital and analog
interfacing; the digital representation of a continuous analog
signal by sampling; scaling, linear transformation, and
calibration; the different ways to transfer data between
programs and operating systems and platforms; the concept of the
clipboard and copy and paste; the difference between raster and
vector graphics; between screen resolution and printer
resolution; between a client and a server; between a host and a
local system, between local area and wide area networks; between
network hardware and network protocols; between modem dialup,
direct RS-232 connection, and a network connection; the
principles of telecommunication; the common features af all
terminal programs; the main classes of Internet tools.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:22:05 -0400
From: JOHN WOOLCOCK
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks

I like Tom O'Haver's list. It also is an excellent start at answering the
question of what computer skills/knowledge our students should have to
effectively use computers in chemistry courses posed eariler in the conference.

John C. Woolcock
Chemistry Department
Indiana University of PA
Indiana, PA 15705
Interent: WOOLCOCK@grove.iup.edu
Bitnet: WOOLCOCK@IUP
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:29:09 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: <9307211235.AA11484@umd5.umd.edu>

Paul Edwards writes:

> Maybe students would focus more on the concepts if
> we took the emphasis off the calculations by providing
> computational tools.

A number of studies have shown that the ability of students
to work quantitative problems correctly in not proof that
they really understand the underlying concepts. (For example,
look at the paper earlier this year in J. Chem. Educ. by Mary
Nakhleh of Purdue Univ). If allowed to do so, students can
learn procedures for solving problems without necessarily coming
to grips with the conceptual basis. If our examinations reward
quick and accurate manual problem solving, then the successful
students will have proven simply that they are quick and accurate
manual problem solvers. Is that enough? Do we teach problem
solving to support conceptual understanding or simply to produce
good manual problem solvers?

> I am not excited about balancing equations using numerical
> methods which mask oxidation-reduction chemistry and the notions
> of half-reactions which follow. I suspect we would be giving in
> to students with weak math skills if we were to provide tools for
> rearranging PV=nRT.

Should students use tools such as equation solvers and numerical
methods that automate tasks that have traditionally been performed
manually? I think it should be like arithmetic on a calculator; of
course we should teach how to do simple problems by hand, but we
should also teach how to use an appropriate computer tool to work
serious industrial-strength problems as well. I would argue that
students will learn more from setting up problems "from scratch" for
automated solution using computer tools, rather than simply using
templates or dedicated single-purpose programs that have been
pre-programmed. I am not excited about rearranging PV=nRT - and
I suspect that many students may share that sentiment - but
I found it kind of fun to set it up on an equation solver and watch
it crank. A student that knows how to do that can also solve more
realistic and challenging problems that CAN'T or shouldn't be done
by hand. But you can't forget hand calculations; after all, you have
to check to see that the computer is right!

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:35:27 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: <9307211235.AA11484@umd5.umd.edu>

Vassili Lyutsarev writes:

> Did we need a special released time to train
> using TV? or calculators?

Indeed not. But I for one find computers more challenging
than TV, and also very much more interesing and empowering.
Taking time for professional development may be necessary, but
it does not always require that we ask for released time.
There are many useful 1-3 day workshops available at national
and regional meetings, and during the summer there are usually
several residential workshop programs (e.g. those supported by
NSF) that one can apply for. I myself got my start in computing
in one such workshop run by Sam Perone at Purdue Univ. back in the
1970's. But, as Dave Brooks points out, such experiences will not
have any long term effect unless they are followed up by a personal
commitment adopt computer as a personal tool for professinal use.

> When an educator is ready to accept new tools
> (s)he accepts it and begins to use. Otherwise either the tool is not
> good enough or the person has come to its limit in accepting new
> knowledge.

That's a good point. Some people are easily "turned off" by excessively
agressive techno-evangelism. And some people will never change. Thomas
S. Kuhn, the MIT philosopher of science, said in his wonderful book
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that "...scientific training
is not well designed to produce the [person] who will easily discover a
fresh approach. But so long as someone appears with a new candidate for
paradigm - usually a young [person] or one new to the field - the loss
due to rigidity accrues only to the individual. Given a generation in
which to effect the change, individual rigidity is compatible with a
community that can switch from paradigm to paradigm when the occasion
demands."

Max Planck once said that a new idea "...does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but
rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it."

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:34:44 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:45:31 -0400 from

What a fantastic list!!!! See below

On Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:45:31 -0400 Thomas C. O'Haver said:
>Jack Martin Miller writes:
>
>> A training leave will leave the person who required it trained
>> for the product or computer that was out of date by the time
>> they got to the point of having to use it.
>
>For this reason I believe that it is important to stress
>conceptual knowledge of the general principles more than
>procedural knowledge of specific products. Granted, you have to
>have some procedural knowledge to get things to work, but in the
>long run it's the conceptual knowledge of general principles
>that lasts. The important thing is to realize that there IS a
>conceptual base to computer operation and applications; it's not
>ALL procedural. You might not think so, looking at all the
>books that stress procedure. Once you begin to understand the
>principles, then you can begin to contruct your own procedures
>without depending on detailed and impossible-to-remember
>instructions for everything. Modern computing environments have
>demonstrated how a common conceptual base extending across all
>applications and peripheral devices can greatly simplify
>learning new programs and adding new hardware.

I would add one which is both procedural and conceptual, and which has a
profound influence on usage--GUI (Mac & Windows) vs. character-based
interface (DOS, etc.).

>
>What are the important concepts? Here's my list: The concept of
>a file and file type; the difference between a text and a binary
>file; between RAM and disk memory; between an application and a
>document; between a text editor, a word processor, and a desktop
>publishing (page layout) program; between a tab stop and a tab
>character; between spreadsheet and equation solvers; between a
>symbolic algebra program and a numeric analysis program; between
>plain text and formatted text; between a compiler and an
>interpreter; between machine language and assembly language;
>between serial and parallel; between digital and analog
>interfacing; the digital representation of a continuous analog
>signal by sampling; scaling, linear transformation, and
>calibration; the different ways to transfer data between
>programs and operating systems and platforms; the concept of the
>clipboard and copy and paste; the difference between raster and
>vector graphics; between screen resolution and printer
>resolution; between a client and a server; between a host and a
>local system, between local area and wide area networks; between
>network hardware and network protocols; between modem dialup,
>direct RS-232 connection, and a network connection; the
>principles of telecommunication; the common features af all
>terminal programs; the main classes of Internet tools.
>
>Tom O'Haver
>U. of Maryland

Let's not be too generous about communicating such information. It's taken
me 20 years to understand this stuff. ;->

Thanks, Tom, for the great summary.

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:44:24 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:29:09 -0400 from

On Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:29:09 -0400 Thomas C. O'Haver said:
>by hand. But you can't forget hand calculations; after all, you have
>to check to see that the computer is right!
>
>Tom O'Haver
>U. of Maryland

I thought the computer was always right! ;-)

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:57:18 EDT
From: "Swamy (K.R. Subbaswamy)"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Jul 93 09:51:59 EDT from

Yes, I am familiar with Kuhn's book; in fact I own it. Don't you?

It is a nice little paperback.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:58:18 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

George Long writes
>
>I agree, but continual self training takes time as well. Given a limited
>amount time, it will always be necessary to cut corners when applying
>computer technology to the classroom. Perhaps we can all agree that, as
>David Boyles says " There must yet be a place for professional development of
>faculty. " and as a response to the significant change communication
>technology has created in education, more time should be allocated to faculty
>for this endeavour than has been typical at smaller universities.
>
AT least in my "small university" though I guess we are no longer fit the
definition of 'small' in a 10 member department, release time has not been
the problem. The problem is bsed on first hand knowledge of individuals,
and not only in my department, or university for that mater, that those who
have taken release time for learning chemical computing and writing
teaching software have not produced anything worthwhile - Apple II programs
when DOS and Macs were taking over, and DOS programs when Mac and Windows
began to dominate. Existing sharewarer was available that did better jobs
than their programs, but having spent all this time writing software, they
were neither up to date on software, or on their research which they let
lapse to do the former.

Let me offer a different model which I have seen be successful in many real
cases. Encourage a faculty member to learn about computing as an aid to
their research - then their graduate students or undergraduate project
students provide the impetus, help with the development, help with the
training of the faculty member etc.When computing becomes indispensable to
the research it naturally flows into teaching. Every effective user of
computers in my department got into it by first having computers become
indispensible to research.

Someone asked a question yesterday about how to bring in expertise. Let me
give an example of what happens if you talk to people on your campus. Last
week we held a workshop for users of one particular manufactuers mass
spectrometry data systems. The corporate software product-manager led the
workshop. A beta version of new networkable software was demonstrated, but
it was not yet ready to demonstrate over a network, since they thought it
would take 10-12 hours to set up. One question to the UNIX guru in Computer
User Services, and with the help of the Network administrator from Computer
Science mycoordinator of analytical services and I had the software running
on four different workstations from two manufactuers, on an X-terminal and
on a PC in X-emulation mode. This little bit of interdepartmental
coorperation meant that we showed the software vendors major advantages in
changing the direction they had been going with the networking and we also
discovered some additional bugs which they were unaware of. The payment for
a rather fun bit of network poking was some thousands of dollars of free
software. Since we run our state of the art equipment in ways not designed
by the manufactueres we get to grants for new equipment, get to play with
the latest equipment and then it moves into the classroom. I can call up
not simply nmr or mass spectrometry simulators, but actual nmr and mass
spec software associated with our instrumentation and actually process real
data in class anywhere on campus. That came not from wanting to do it as a
pedagogical project but from wanting to get the data to my desk top or home
Mac to write papers in the most convenient fashion. What I have is far
better than any nmr simulator that I've seen.

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 10:31:12 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks
In-Reply-To: <9307211420.AA18050@umd5.umd.edu>

Jim Holler says:
> I would add one which is both procedural and conceptual, and which has a
> profound influence on usage--GUI (Mac & Windows) vs. character-based
> interface (DOS, etc.).

Good, and also the difference between batch mode and interactive operation.

Anyone think of other basic concepts?

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:22:09 MSD
From: "Laser Chemistry Dept., MSU"
Subject: Paper 10 - Answers to short questions

PERSONAL COMPUTERS IN TEACHING PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

Aleksei A. Kubasov, Vassilii S.Lyutsarev, Kirill V.Ermakov,
Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Republic.
E-MAIL: LASER@mch.chem.msu.su

ANSWERS TO SHORT QUESTIONS.

Questions from Donald Rosenthal

> > The advanced course in Physical Chemistry for students of
> > Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University
>
> > Special group of students with profound studying of mathematics
> > and physical chemistry ... Fundamental course of physical chemistry
> > for these students ...
>
> QUESTION 1
> a. How many students are there in this course?
> b. Are these undergraduate or graduate students?
> c. If they are undergraduate students, is this the first course in
> physical chemistry these students have taken, or is this an advanced
> course?
> d. How much chemical kinetics have they been taught prior to taking this
> course?
> e. How many students are there at Moscow State University?
> How many undergraduate and graduate chemistry majors?
> How large a chemistry faculty does the university have?

There are approximately 20,000 undergraduate students at 18 faculties.
Of those about 1000 are chemistry majors at Chemical faculty.
They are divided in 12 groups 15-20 members each. Group number 11
has a specialty in physical chemistry. It is this group mentioned
in our paper.
The fundamental course of physical chemistry our students have
during the 3rd year (out of 5). But, of course, while learning
inorganic chemistry during the 1st year and analytical chemistry
during the 2nd year they receive some basics in quantum chemistry,
classical thermodynamics and kinetics.

> > Reform freshman computer course.
>
> QUESTION 2
> a. Prior to taking your course, how much of a background in computers do the
> students have?
> b. Do all chemistry majors take a freshman computing course?
> c. What is presently taught in the freshman computing course?

Freshman computing course for all chemistry majors is held now
in the first academic year (102 hr). It includes IBM PC/XT
practice with word processor (ChiWriter: the most common
software in the scientific laboratories of the faculty),
Pascal programming (with Turbo Pascal) and an acquaintance
with database uses.

> d. What computing facilities are available for students generally at
> Moscow State University?

We have not full information about computing facilities at MSU
because MSU is very large. But as we know the most wide-spread
computer in it is an IBM PC compatible.

At chemical faculty students have access to two computer labs:
first one with 10 PC/XT machines and second with 10 PC/AT/286's.
Many students also have access to IBM PCs in scientific laboratories.
PCs in the computer labs are connected in LANs (separated from each other).
At the present time we don't have united faculty LAN and students
have no easy access to file servers or mainframes.

> e. What computing facilities are available for
> students taking your course? Do you have enough computers for the
> number of students you are teaching? Do students routinely use
> word processing?

All the seminars described in this paper are held in an IBM PC/AT computer
lab with 10 machines. This is not enough without any doubt. But
for now chemical faculty can not give us more. It is necessary that
students have wide access to a computer for individual work. But
this will be only in future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Theresa Julia Zielinski

> Questions Paper 10
>
> 1. How much math and pchem (courses/semester hours) do the
> students take prior to this course?

During first two years the physical chemistry students take 6 courses in math:
- math analysis;
- analytical geometry;
- linear algebra;
- differential equations;
- mathematical methods in physics;
- math statistics;
and 4 courses in physics:
- mechanics and electricity;
- optics and vibrations;
- theoretical mechanics and field theory;
- quantum mechanics.

> 2. What windows development tool is used to develop hyperbook?
> (Boy would I like to work on a pchem HyperBook project)

As you may know, there are some standard hypertext tools in
Windows, the very first is WinHelp utility. But closer look at
it revealed the lack of some features, especially what we call
interactive illustrations. That is why we preferred to create
our own hypertext program. We used Borland products (Borland C++ and
Turbo Pascal for Windows). The hypertext system and the page editor
already work. Next step is to fill them with pchem contents.

> 3. I would like to have an english copy of the course topics
> for the pchem course(s) that is(are) prerequisite to this
> course.

Sorry, but now we are not ready to present this information in English.
May be, in September..

> 4. I am currently writing up a Mathcad exercise for item B1 of
> your paper. It should be ready by mid August. My students
> enjoy working this way to learn. they learn more and they
> learn more deeply.

We are very interested in and are ready to broad exchange of
information and collaboration.

> 5. I think that my students would enjoy the oscillating
> kinetics experiment. Would you pass on one or two english
> references to get me started.

You may look at
D.Gurel, O.Gurel. Oscillations In Chemical Reactions. Springer, 1983.
or some books written by Prigogine and co-workers.

> 6. What is the source of data for figures 8, 9, & 10.

The data are taken from tables of pchem properties of water.
If you need them, we can send you these values by e-mail.

> 7. For figure 11, can students rotate and view it from
> different angles. Diagrams of this type are very useful
> pedagogically. Where does one get a copy of SURFER?

Yes, students can set their point of view and thus look at the
surface from different angles. But this is not such a real-time
process as rotating molecules in modern molecular dynamics programs.
SURFER is a product of Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado 80401.
You may try also 303-279-1021 or 1-800-333-1021. (Unfortunately, we don't
know how to obtain the license to use this product in Russia and
explore very old version).
This package is popular in Russia because it runs easily on IBM AT/286.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 12:18:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 9 - Discussion

Re: Paper 9 - Discussion of Computer Training and Needs
From: Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 13:56:25 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller

Paul Edwards is right when he writes that:
>
>I suspect all would agree that the computer is a tool which has
>dramatically changed the way scientists function. Certainly education
>in science ought to reflect the computer as a tool of the profession.
>Indeed, as Professor Brooks argues, we should act as models using
>computers has much as possible as would a professional chemist. I would
>go further by claiming that professional applications can be integrated
>very naturally into the curriculum, and I suspect most of us
>participating in this conference are already doing as much of that as we
>can.

>> A training leave will leave the person who required it trained
>> for the product or computer that was out of date by the time
>> they got to the point of having to use it.

* Much of what we learn in ALL FIELDS will eventually be replaced
* by new and perhaps ultimately more important ideas.
* Is this a reason for not bothering to learn?
* I don't believe so. If a chemist wishes to learn a high level
* programming language, a word processor, a spreadsheet, graphics,
* or computational methods, (s)he should obviously not choose to learn
* using software that is obviously obsolete, or so complicated that
* frustration will be the primary result of the experience.
*
* Some of Tom O'Haver's comments are pertinent:

> Date: Wed. 21 Jul 1993 07:45

> .... it is important to stress conceptual knowledge of the general
> principles more than procedural knowledge of specific products.

* Presumably, the faculty member who is expending the time and effort
* to learn word processing, etc. will use it and where appropriate
* teach it to his students. He and his students will be better off
* for the efforts they have expended.
* Sure it would be better to use current state-of-the-art software
* (provided it is reasonably user friendly), but e.g. ANY program which
* performs linear least squares and provides deviations, the slope,
* intercept, their standard deviations and the standard deviation
* from regression is satisfactory. What the student needs to
* understand is what information these statistics provide and how
* the results are to be interpreted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEACHER TRAINING:

For a number of years the ACS Division of Chemical Education's Committee
on Computers in Chemical Education have offered National Workshops
designed to assist teachers learn about specific software and its use.
There have been other workshops held at the Biennial Meetings.
Workshops are planned for the Biennial Meeting to be held at Bucknell
University in 1994. I believe workshops on spreadsheets, computational
software and interfacing are planned. While these workshops only run
for a few days, they do assist faculty in getting started.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 13:14:51 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Discussion

>Re: Paper 9 - Discussion of Computer Training and Needs
>
>Donald Rosenthal writes:
>
>* Much of what we learn in ALL FIELDS will eventually be replaced
>* by new and perhaps ultimately more important ideas.
>* Is this a reason for not bothering to learn?
>* I don't believe so. If a chemist wishes to learn a high level
>* programming language, a word processor, a spreadsheet, graphics,
>* or computational methods, (s)he should obviously not choose to learn
>* using software that is obviously obsolete, or so complicated that
>* frustration will be the primary result of the experience.
>*

The problem with leaves to go away and learn vs doing it continuously on
your own time is that location and project often are defined well in
advance - 6-12 months plus the learning curve time while on leave so that
it may be 18 months from requesting the leave that you actually get down to
work on something real, and if the place you've gone to on your leave is
not up to date, but is still writing for the large investment of now
obsolete hardware that they own, you learn all about how to do things that
are a waste of time, since in the area of computing 6 months is a long time
and a generation of software lasts 12-18 months. Its too easy to one or
more generations behind.

You say people wouldn't choose to learn something obviously obsolete, but
almost every leave of the type described in this paper that I am aware of
has resulted in just that!

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 13:18:36 EDT
From: "R. T. Wilson"
Subject: Paper 9 discussion

Tom, you have given us a great list of things which we all should know, but it
throws me into a terrible state of depression because I don't know most of it.
To make matters worse, Jim Holler says it took him 20 years to learn all that
stuff, and he's not going to give us any help with it. I have an uneasy feeling
that Tom, Jim and Max Planck are sitting out there waiting for me to die so
they can come in and take over. Tom, you're my only hope. Give me a few
references or something I can chew on to get started.
Don Rosenthal, you also seem to have attained enlightenment in some
way. How did you do it? How about getting the ACS to put some of those short
courses on the network or into some format such as this conference for the
benefit of more people. Many of us, especially those from smaller schools,
don't get to many of those big ACS meetings in the sky.
Terrell Wilson
Virginia Military Institute
Lexington, Virginia 24450
{fchwilson%faculty%vmi@ist.vmi.edu}
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 14:48:00 EST
From: "DR. LISA KINTNER CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, UPJ,
JOHNSTOWN PA"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Special training can hardly help us.

With respect to special training, George Lon (Indiana University of Pa) touches
on a common off-shoot, "on the job" learning and what a former collegue of mine
called "built-in frustration". George quotes Paul Edwards,
Finally, Paul Edwards Writes;

Do faculty have to be molecular mechanics experts before asking advanced
students to do a modeling exercise described in J. Chem. Ed.? Or, can
we give them the software and the article, and let them figure it out?
Isn't that what we are training them to be able to do? Isn't that what
an employer or a graduate adviser is going to expect of them in the not
too distant future?

I agree, and I have actually done this. It was possible to learn more about
the software (MOBY), and was a worthwhile experience. However the students
perceived this method as a lack of organization on my part. Several unhappy
students mentioned that Dr. Long was helpful, but seemed to be learning the
software as he went (actually as they experienced difficulties I had never
encountered). They felt I should have anticipated their problems or have
been able to fix them easily. While I can rationalize this by saying that
the students will be better off in the long run, I still have bad student
evaluations for this lab.

I had similar experiences my first year teaching when I also had responsibility
for an advanced inorganic lab. While the students (all seniors) recognized
that I was new, they still felt that I should have anticipated their problems.
This points to an issue more general than the one presented in David Brook's
paper. We, and our students (thought they would like to deny it) learn most
of what we know because we are faced with a problem which we have to solve.

Lisa Kintner
Department of Chemistry
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
KINTNER@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:29:45 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

Terrel Wilson writes:

>Tom, you have given us a great list of things which we all should know, but it
>throws me into a terrible state of depression because I don't know most of it.
> To make matters worse, Jim Holler says it took him 20 years to learn all that
>stuff, and he's not going to give us any help with it. I have an uneasy feeling
> that Tom, Jim and Max Planck are sitting out there waiting for me to die so
>they can come in and take over. Tom, you're my only hope. Give me a few
>references or something I can chew on to get started.
> Don Rosenthal, you also seem to have attained enlightenment in some
>way. How did you do it? How about getting the ACS to put some of those short
>courses on the network or into some format such as this conference for the
>benefit of more people. Many of us, especially those from smaller schools,
>don't get to many of those big ACS meetings in the sky.

Most of Tom's "concepts" I teach to my 4th year undergrads if they don't
already know them in 3 or 4 hours. the one's I don't teach, I assume the
students have taught themselves since they are using computers at a very
early stage before they get them as compulsory parts of courses, without
formal introductions since their essays and lab reports look so much
better. However since our introductory calculus courses in math are all
taught with Maple in Mac labs, every chemistry student is at least familiar
with the basic use of a computer in first year.

Even my wife, a PhD in English & a Professor in the Dept. of Film Studies,
Dramatic and Visual Arts knows more than half the answers without ever
having any computer training -- and she doesn't want me to tell her 5
different ways of doing something -- she just uses word processors to write
her books, the internet and e-mail as her latest productivity tools, the
network to access the library catalogue and a spreadsheet for marks etc.
She learned by trying and asks the question of whether there's a better way
after she feel's she understnads what's going on. She hates all things
mechanical but uses her computers (she now has three, one at home, one in
the office and one for her typist) because they make life easier, and she
uses them as tools for classes in shakespeare and television drama as
well. If a Prof. in the humanities can manage, surely a Chemist can.

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:45:17 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion
In-Reply-To: <01H0SZS53X100018O0@crcvms.unl.edu> from "R. T. Wilson" at Jul 21,
93 01:18:36 pm

Many thanks to the discussants of paper 9.

The idea espoused in paper 9 was not intended as a joke.
When there is a resource problem, a resource-based solution
is likely to needed. Faculty time is the most expensive
part of the cost equation. Replacement costs are almost
always lower -- sometimes much lower -- than faculty costs.
Leaves afford the lowest cost solution to the problem.

There have been a few remarks made about research into
learning. The neurological basis for learning is becoming
more and more clear. One can take an artificial retina and
hook it up to some neural network learning gadget like a
sparse distributed memory and achieve real learning -- such
as the ability to recognize features of a pattern. The
experiments are several years old! Fool around with
misconception theory and constructivism if you like, but
serious work in neural based learning appears on the pages
of Science about 3 weeks out of 4. A membership in AAAS is
well worth the price; Science comes weekly, and is two
notches above Scientific American but a notch below Accounts
of Chemical Research in the level of its review pieces.

I have been giving a talk here and there for the last year
or so. I use four props: a hard cover book of logarithm
tables purchased for $0.59 in 1958; a yellow metal slide
rule (with case) given to me by my wife in 1963; an HP-11C
calculator, but my first HP was an HP-45 bought in 1973; and
a PowerBook. You can guess how the talk goes. About two
months ago I tried to use the log book; darned if I hadn't
remembered. There must be some more useful way for me to be
able to reassign those neurons.

Today as we participate in this electronic conference,
hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by the NSF
and other agencies on training science teachers and
formulating so-called frameworks. It strikes me that about
half of the training and over 85% of the effort in
frameworks is obsolete. I've disagreed with nearly
everything that one of the more prolific contributors to the
discussion has stated, but one comment rung true -- that
people on leave can come back skilled in writing Apple
programs when the world has moved on to Macs and PCs. True,
true. Partly the fault of planning for the leave, but true,
true nevertheless. Well, MULTIPLY that financial waste by
about 100,000 and you have the waste cost of much current
efforts in teacher training. I do not mean that science
will come to depend upon new and heretofore unknown
principles. I do mean that the way we do science and the
way we think when empowered by new tools will be entirely
different (is entirely different) than one might guess from
looking at the outcomes of current training efforts. So,
while I don't quibble with most of the concepts covered in
training program content, I reject essentially all of the
approach. Here are a few rules that might change things a
bit:

1. Every training session for inservice and preservice
science teachers must involve DAILY use of computers.

2. Inservice and preservice teachers must be provided
direct access to personal computers, preferably though
personally owned devices.

3. Every lesson plan generated in a training program for
inservice or preservice teachers should (must) have a
section on computer use. Have you ever seen a lab manual
with a safety entry to the effect that the experiment
involves no special safety hazards, and that routine safety
precautions should get you through the day? A parallel form
of required entry could deal with justifiable cases of
computer non-use.

Why are such rules not likely to come about? Adopting these
rules would disenfranchise large numbers of current
trainers. Perhaps those trainers need a leave. Five will
get you ten that they don't spend their leaves learning
about computers or software or neurons. They'll probably
spend there leaves chatting about misconceptions.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:52:52 -0500
From: Michael A Kahlow
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

I thought Tom O'Haver's list was wonderful. But it's not as easy as
Dr. Miller would have us believe. I've programmed thousands of lines of
code, designed my own interface cards... and there are still things I
don't know and can't find out about. Example: I'm the most computer
literate in my dept - so who's going to teach ME about all of the
features of internet? Sure, we can all learn on our own -- but it helps
to have a critical mass of interest. That's one reason I've really
enjoyed this conference -- that "critical mass" is here and we can all
learn from each other (rather than all of us simultaneously reinventing
CAI).

michael kahlow
micheal.a.kahlow@uwrf.edu (university of wisconsin - river falls)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:17:40 EDT
From: David Ostfeld
Subject: Paper 9 Discussion

There is one more point about computerization that everyone knows but no one
has mentioned. There is simply no substitute for having a computer and as
much software as possible at home. One surely needs a goal -- and that's at
school. But there just ins't enough time in the school day to learn what you
need. And if you did manage to learn it, you (or at least I) need the home
computer to keep up to date.
Dave Ostfeld
Academy for the Advancement of Science (Hackensack, NJ)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:40:47 -0400
From: "Mr. Science"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

"Number One, engage text-extractor beam... NOW!!"
"Aye, Captain!!"
BBBZZZFFFTTT!!!
"Captain, previous message locked into extractor beam. Begin reply?"
"Mr. Riker... Make it so!"

>
>I thought Tom O'Haver's list was wonderful. But it's not as easy as
>Dr. Miller would have us believe. I've programmed thousands of lines of
>code, designed my own interface cards... and there are still things I
>don't know and can't find out about. Example: I'm the most computer
>literate in my dept - so who's going to teach ME about all of the
>features of internet? Sure, we can all learn on our own -- but it helps
>to have a critical mass of interest. That's one reason I've really
>enjoyed this conference -- that "critical mass" is here and we can all
>learn from each other (rather than all of us simultaneously reinventing
>CAI).
>

Michael brings up a good point. Perhaps we need to create a USENET newsgroup
for chemistry instructors? That way, well after this on-line conference is
over, we can still benefit from our 'critical mass' of knowledge!

Tony ;>

Date this awe-inspiring message was sent: 21-JUL-1993 17:39:36
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
| Anthony V. Rosati | |
| Department of Chemistry, | "A nation that cannot think, |
| Georgetown University | cannot survive." |
| Washington, D.C. 20057-2222 | |
| ROSATI@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU | - Norman Mailer, 1992 |
| A_ROSATI@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU | National Press Club |
# ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== #
| Information Exchange Coordinator and Member, Board of Directors |
| National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS) |
| 1993 - 1994 |
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:50:08 -0500
From: "Alfred J. Lata"
Subject: Paper 9 comments

David Brooks has 'always' had the ability to stir up a hornet nest: that's
why we love him so. But further we enjoy the opportunity to examine and
re-examine what we are doing, as required by the comments he makes to and
for us.
BUT to almost quote, without attribution, (from the mid 60's) 'the purpose
of computers is not numbers, but insight.' Much, I hope, of our teaching
in Chemistry, and our other subjects, is not just for the subject matter,
but to teach the students how to think, how to attack problems, how to
analyze, how to etc.,etc., The opportunity to use tools, learn tools,
what their capabilities and limitations are, and then to find new and better
tools. Folks are always amazed by the McGyver's (for you TV fans), who
can do much with little; resulting from looking for new insight.
How many of us have students who say "well, if I only knew whether to
multiply or divide I could get it right", but refuse to make use of
dimensional analysis, and will not use 'units' in solutions of problems.
In many cases, our problems are posed to see whether the student can solve
them, not only to see if they can get the right answer (do you give partial
credit? Why?) We learn from making mistakes, but we should also learn
not to make the same mistakes (my gosh, professional golfers and BB players
are not 'successful' every time (i.e., every shot), but they continue in
their sport : why not students!
A colleague of mine once said (as the semester drew to a close and there
was still SO much material to cover) 'is our job to cover material, or uncover
material?'
Let's not let the students feel that it is only the answer that is
most important :it's learning that's important. There going to have to
do that all of their lives.
Hey, try the following (no calculator allowed) if log of 1 = 0.000,
lof of 10 = 1.000, log 2 = 0.301 and log 3 = 0.477 How much of the log
table can you 'create' (i.e., generate)?\
Thanks Dr. Brooks for stirring us up.

Alfred J. Lata
Dept of Chemistry
University of Kansas
lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:10:37 EDT
From: "R. T. Wilson"
Subject: Paper 9 discussion

Tony Rosati says:

>Perhaps we need to create a USENET newsgroup for chemistry instructors.

A great idea from Mr. Science! Sign me up. This conference has convinced me
that electronic communication (and education) is the wave of the future. It
increases the efficiency of the knowledge-transfer process by orders of
magnitude.
Terrell Wilson
Virginia Military Institute
Lexington, Virginia 24450
{fchwilson%faculty%vmi@ist.vmi.edu}
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:26:32 -0600
From: Jim Diamond
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion
In-Reply-To: <9307211822.AA02249@umd5.umd.edu>

On Wed, 21 Jul 1993, R. T. Wilson wrote:
> Don Rosenthal, you also seem to have attained enlightenment in some
> way. How did you do it? How about getting the ACS to put some of those short
> courses on the network or into some format such as this conference for the
> benefit of more people. Many of us, especially those from smaller schools,
> don't get to many of those big ACS meetings in the sky.
> Terrell Wilson

I just spent two weeks at Asheville at the NSF sponsored
workstation workshop. Granted, this is a large hunk of time, but it was
terrific! This was the opinion of the rest of the participants as well,
some of whom were almost totally naive about hardware. If such an
opportunity arises again, go for it! Didn't the workshop announcement
appear on CHEMED-L ?
|\/\/\/|
| | Jim Diamond ___
| | S-Mail : Chemistry Department ( |______/----------_
| (o)(o) Linfield College | * \
C _) McMinnville OR 97128 | HATE-FREE |
| ,___| E-Mail : jimd@linfield.edu ( ZONE /
| / Voice : (503)-472-4121 (X471) ( (for now) (
/____\ FAX : (503)-472-3198 |_____________________|
/ \ ICBM : 45 deg 12'15" N 123 deg 12'04" W
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:01:21 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion
In-Reply-To: <9307211835.AA02919@umd5.umd.edu>

> Perhaps we need to create a USENET newsgroup for chemistry
> instructors.

There are already newsgroups for chemistry (sci.chem) and
for science education (sci.edu), and listservers for
chemistry education (CHEMED-L), chemical information (CHMINF-L),
computational chemistry (OSCPOST@oscsunb.osc.edu), chemometrics
(ICS-L), and even for undergraduate chemistry students
(chemistrytm@dhvx20.csudh.edu). CHEMED-L is quite active; many
participants in this conference are also CHEMED-L regulars and
find it useful.

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:08:56 -0400
From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion
In-Reply-To: <9307211835.AA02919@umd5.umd.edu>

> Give me a few references or something I can chew on to get
> started.

There are introductory tutorials on networking and on
computer graphics in the BackgroundReading directory on
info.umd.edu /Teaching/ChemConference/BackgroundReading,
which is accessible by telnet, FTP, or gopher.
For more information on Internet resourses, refer to
Polly-Alida Farrington's Chemistry Internet Resources guide,
which is available via anonymous ftp at ftp.rpi.edu in directory
pub/resources. There are three versions of the file:
chem-guide.ps = Postscript version
chem-guide.ps.hqx = Compressed Postscript version
chem-guide.txt = ASCII/unformatted text file

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:14:27 -0700
From: Barbara Sawrey
Subject: D. Brook's reponse to Paper 9 Discussion

>Here are a few rules that might change things a
>bit:

>1. Every training session for inservice and preservice
>science teachers must involve DAILY use of computers.

>2. Inservice and preservice teachers must be provided
>direct access to personal computers, preferably though
>personally owned devices.

>3. Every lesson plan generated in a training program for
>inservice or preservice teachers should (must) have a
>section on computer use. Have you ever seen a lab manual
>with a safety entry to the effect that the experiment
>involves no special safety hazards, and that routine safety
>precautions should get you through the day? A parallel form
>of required entry could deal with justifiable cases of
>computer non-use.

These rules of David's are strict enough that few training programs could
abide by them, but they are a laudable goal to be put in place soon. I
would endorse carrying them further, to what we do in the classroom with
all students, not just pre-service teachers. I would like to see those of
us who use computers everyday for communication and research to incorporate
those computers in our communication with our students, no matter what the
activation energy. I have been holding office hours by computer for
the last year and a half, for lecture classes as large as 375. It has
worked beautifully and I have reaped benefits I had not anticipated -- but
that's a paper or posting for another day. My point is that even though
I sit in front of a computer most of my day (and have done so for several
years) it took me a long time to take it into the classroom because I never
found the perfect piece of software or the perfect image, and I thought
that poor use of computers was worse than nothing at all. I am no longer
convinced that is the case. Sure there's some lousy software out there, and
some that just isn't applicable enough to warrant buying a site license for
the student computer lab, but even if you show one rotating molecule, or one
image of a protein, or do a quick library search on the computer in class for
all to see, you've made progress. Don't wait until you can show beauty and
perfection, do what's utilitarian. If you can't show them specific chemistry
software, at least introduce them to the Internet and on-campus communication.
Everyday something else is available on-line that makes it easier to find
information there than anywhere else. If we don't have the spirit of
adventure and demonstrate a quest for knowledge we can't expect it of
our students.

Barbara Sawrey
bsawrey@ucsd.edu
Dept of Chemistry
UCSD
La Jolla, CA 92093-0303
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:46:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Abstract for Meeting

Correction and changes indicated in lines with asterisks (*)

CHEMCONF: APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING CHEMISTRY - REPORT ON AN
ON-LINE COMPUTER CONFERENCE Alfred J. Lata, Department of Chemistry,
University of Kansas, Lawrence Kansas 66045, Thomas C. O'Haver, Department
of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
20742, and Donald Rosenthal, Department of Chemistry, Clarkson University,m
Potsdam, New York 13676

The first on-line computer conference, "CHEMCONF: Applications of Technology
* ***** - delete first - this is probably not true.

in Teaching Chemistry", was held via e-mail (Internet, BITNET) on 14 June to
** from

20 August 1993. Sponsored by the Committee on Computers in Chemical Education
(CCCE) of the ACS's Division of Chemical Education, Inc., the conference
had an enrollment of 450 participants from 32 countries and was conducted
* . It

using LISTSERV at the University of Maryland and was moderated by Dr.
O'Haver. No registration fee or travel were involved. Fifteen papers were
presented with authors from three countries. Papers were submitted electron-
ically and were available for distribution at the beginning and during
the conference via Internet or BITNET mail, or by anonymous ftp at the
conferees leisure. In addition to text, there were graphics, diagrams, and
even animations distributed in the same fashion. Questions and discussions
wer scheduled during the course of the conference and wer conducted using
*** were *** were

email.
Enrollment, structure of the conference, papers, questions and discusssion,
and suggestions for future conferences will be discussed.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 21:10:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 9 - Discussion of Teacher Training

Paper 9 - Training for Educators

Earlier today I mentioned some workshops to be held during and after the
Biennial Meeting at Bucknell.
Professor Margaret Kastner at Bucknell has sent me the following information
which I pass on to you. (Her e-mail address is KASTNER@BUCKNELL.EDU)
In addition to these workshops, there will be other workshops at the Bucknell
meeting.

Don Rosenthal
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================

NSF sponsored Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Workshops will be offered
August 4-6, 1994 at Bucknell University. Six workshops will be offered:

Six NSF-Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Workshops will be held
following the 13BCCE, August 4-6, 1994, at Bucknell University. The workshops
are:

One- and Two- Dimensional NMR Spectroscopy, by Richard Cornelius, Lebanon
Valley College*

Spreadsheets in Chemistry Courses, Patricia C. Flath, Paul Smiths' College*

Molecular Structure by Xray Crystallographic Techniques, Jenny Glusker, Fox
Chase Cancer Center, and Miriam Rossi,Vassar College*

Interfacing Computers, Ken Ratzlaff, University of Kansas*

Mathematic Software for Chemical Education, Allan Smith, Drexel University

Material Science, Gary Wnek, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

*These four workshops will start during the last half-day of the 13BCCE.

Application deadline is January 10, 1994. To recieve application materials,
please send your name and address to Margaret Kastner, Department of
Chemistry/BCCE, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837 The costs of room
(shared-double dorm room), meals and NSF-UFE workshop registration fees are
fully paid by the NSF Award. Participation in the NSF-UFE workshops does not
require attendance at the 13BCCE: registration for the BCCE is separate from
these workshops.

Registration materials will be available by October, 1993.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 22:11:39 -0400
From: JOHN WOOLCOCK
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

David Brooks writes:
>Using software tools changes how we think. That usage changes
>which tasks we think are important. That usage changes how we
>undertake tasks.

and Paul Edwards writes:
>I hope we don't make the same mistake with computers that we did with
>calculators. That battle was over a long time ago, so I'm not trying to
>restart it, but some of us aren't too happy about the outcome.

There are important implications here. Perhaps the battle over calculators is
past but not for computers although that time is fast approaching. As
computers and calculators become more similar (laptops and graphics calculators
are already here and being more widely used) we will be forced to deal with
this issue. Perhaps this time we can get it right! But one type of information
is often missing: what is the impact on student learning or cognitive skills
caused by each type of software (spreadsheet, instrument simulator, etc.)?

These ideas reminded me of a presentation given by Joseph Casanova on the use
of the "Computer As Electronic Blackboard" given a few years ago at an ACS
meeting. In this paper he described how he used a spreadsheet, structure
drawing program, molecular modeling and hypermedia to create an entire year of
organic lectures that was presented using only a computer. One of the things he
found was that: "The electronic blackboard encourages greater reliance by the
instructor on metaphor, illustration and imaging, but the instructional
effectiveness of these techniques is unclear...In changing the lecture priority
from words and theory to graphics and visualization, the electronic blackboard
conveys to students a different set of priorities within the discipline which
may or may not be tested (using a written exam) by the instructor but may be
important in their future work."

This paper had a profound effect on me. From that point forward I have felt it
was critically important to understand the cognitive/pedagogical results of the
tools we ask our students use, in order for them to be truly effective. Most
software that is currently published has few strategies for use included and
even fewer studies have been done on their effect on studentUs learning. Thus
we are not only faced with what it is and how it operates but also how to use
it effectively and what will are student know or become after using it. This is
perhaps one reason that using new software is seems like such a chore for the
non-enthusiast. Granted there are some site specific concerns for each user
but, for example, what effect does using graphing programs have on students
that use them in lab courses? Do they need to do it the Rold fashioned wayS
even once? What effect does using a graphing program have on later courses?
Perhaps it is these questions we should try to answer and soon. This type of
question also has the advantage of perhaps being more fundable from standard
grant sources that allow for incorporation of release time and would yield a
more tangible results that are portable to other sites and are not so
hardware and software specific.

P.S. Joseph Casanova's computer-based lectures are currently available from
Falcon Software. At the ACS meeting he also made the comment that "The
electronic blackboard should carry a warning label for students and faculty
alike." I wonder how many others should also! (:->) But, fortunately (or
unfortunately?) this hasn't stopped me from trying to use JCE: Software,
ChemSource animations or experiment interfacing in my courses! I just wish that
I had an educational expert give some real assurance that it will really
benefit the students in specific and tangible ways and I'm not doing this just
because I enjoy it. Although that might be as good a reason as any and might
inspire my students to be turn to the computer first as David Brooks would like
us all to do!

John Woolcock
Chemistry Department
Indiana Univ. of PA
Indiana, PA
15705
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 22:42:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 9 - Answers to some Questions

Paper 9 - Discussion

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
ROSEN@CLVM.BITNET

Answers to some Questions:

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 13:18:36 EDT
From: "R. T. Wilson"
Subject: Paper 9 discussion

> Don Rosenthal, you also seem to have attained enlightenment in some
> way. How did you do it?

* In 1961 Clarkson acquired an IBM 1620 mainframe computer. Someone
* from IBM came up for a few days and gave an excellent course in
* FORTRAN. I was doing research which required linear and non linear
* least squares. Previously, I had spent an enormous amount of time do
* these calculations on a Monroe calculator. I wrote programs and saved
* myself a great deal of time. I was able to do calculations which
* would not have been feasible without the computer.
*
* At a later stage I taught computer programming (BASIC and FORTRAN) to
* Clarkson undergraduate chemistry majors. We all know there is no
* better way to learn than to teach.
*
* I have taught a graduate - advanced undergraduate course entitled "The
* Analysis of Experimental Data" which involved the use of numerical and
* statistical methods, consideration of error and error propogation, and
* the testing of hypotheses. Also, I taught a graduate course in
* spectroscopy in which I used some NMR simulation software.
*
* When Clarkson initiated its computer for every student (and faculty
* member) program, I received a microcomputer and word processing,
* spreadsheet and higher level language software. I used the computer
* and much of the software in my courses and developed and adapted
* software for student use (see Paper 1).

======================================================================

> How about getting the ACS to put some of those short courses on the
> network or into some format such as this conference for the benefit of
> more people. Many of us, especially those from smaller schools, don't
> get to many of those big ACS meetings in the sky.

* This is an
* interesting idea. Our workshops tend to be hands on. I'm not sure
* that an on-line workshop would be as effective. How would the textual
* material differ from a good book? One advantage to this scheme
* (compared to a book) would be that discussion and questions would be
* possible. Participants would need to provide software and hardware.
*
* WHAT DO YOU THINK OF Terrell Wilson's IDEA? - Please defer discussion
* until the WEEKEND GENERAL DISCUSSION (and NOT during discussion of
* Paper 10).
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 22:53:40 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: paper 9 discussion

Paul Edwards writes ".. give them the software and let them
figure it out? Isn't that what we are training them to be able
to do?"

The idea is good and the purpose is good but I wonder how many
undergraduates can do this. We spend so much time telling them
what to do and we should not be surprised that they are very
good at following instructions. Being innovative or even
independent enough to just go and do something requires a
quantum leap in maturity level for many students. The levels
that students function at are nicely summarized by the Perry
model of student development. Combine this with the
constructivist model of learning and you have a fairly good
working model of students in chemistry.

This fits in with George Long's comment, "...students perceived
this method as a lack of organization on my part... Dr.
Long...seemed to be learning the software as he went ....They
felt that I should have anticipated their problems or have been
able to fix them easily....I still have bad student evaluations
for this lab." Lisa Kintner had a similar experience.

Then Jim Holler wrote , "I thought the computer was always
right!"

Students expressing these types of comments fall into the
dualist or at best early multiplist pattern of behavior
according to the Perry model. For these students the teacher
is the source of knowledge or the right ways to find the truth.
Ambiguity is a source of frustration. High degrees of
structure and order (the experiment should work without
hitches) are important. Further along the spectrum is where we
would like our students to be - somewhere where they recognize
knowledge as complex and contextual and teachers as experts but
also companions in learning. Complexity and ambiguity become
challenges not threats. (see J. CHEM ED. vol 68 p 753 (1991)
for details about the Perry model).

The challenge for us as educators is to provide environments in
which students can grow into complexity. Perhaps this can be
done by introducing less structure earlier in the curriculum.
Computer modeling, simulations, and tools to explore numerous
problems without the tedium can be used in this way. This of
course must be guided by clear objectives and expectations for
learning that are clearly and openly expressed to the students
at the start of any activity. One problem with this is that
the teacher must be even more prepared than for the traditional
lab or lecture. Another is that there is more responsibility
for student learning placed back into the hand of the student.
Most students initially have trouble with this because of the
nature of education on most campuses. When we free ourselves
from the need to be efficient dispensers of knowledge then our
students may be able to better appreciate us as creators and
seekers of knowledge.

This is in line with what Alfred Lata wrote
"is our job to cover material, or uncover
material?"

I prefer the uncover mode with the student doing most of the
uncovering and me setting the pace and providing the
orchestration.

but then
David Brooks writes concerning his excellent set of rules"

Why are such rules not likely to come about? Adopting these
rules would disenfranchise large numbers of current
trainers. Perhaps those trainers need a leave. Five will
get you ten that they don't spend their leaves learning
about computers or software or neurons. They'll probably
spend there leaves chatting about misconceptions."

I guess none of his students harbor misconceptions. Mine do
and I have quite a time trying to uncover and unmask their
misconceptions. Research has shown that most students adhere
to an Aristotelian view of the universe despite the work of
Newton and generations of physicists who followed him. The
work of A. B. Arons is important for understanding students and
their ability to learn science.

Students construct both misconceptions and conceptions all of
the time. This is described within the constructivist model of
student learning that is very well presented in the papers by
Bodner in J. Chem. Ed. particularly his paper entitled "I Have
Found You an Argument" vol 68 p 385 (1991) which deals with the
conceptual knowledge of beginning graduate school chemistry
students. He concludes that misconceptions are resistant to
instruction and are language and instructor driven. This is a
humbling idea for all of us teachers.

Then Barbara Sawrey wrote

Don't wait until you can show beauty and perfection, do what's
utilitarian. If you can't show them specific chemistry
software, at least introduce them to the Internet and on-campus
communication. Everyday something else is available on-line
that makes it easier to find information there than anywhere
else.

One way to do what Barbara suggests is to put computer software
and tools into the classroom as/while you are learning them or
immediately afterwards. This helps increase your skill and
presents a certain sense of enthusiasm to the students. This
has worked several times for me.
Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 00:19:20 -0400
From: Judith Faye Rubinson
Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks

I like Tom O'Haver's list too. Our computer people just began implementing a
module approach to our required computer sequence--one basic semester plus two
more specific modules. I intend to pass on Tom's list as my suggestion for the
content of the chemistry wish list.

=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 08:19:23 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

>"Number One, engage text-extractor beam... NOW!!"
>"Aye, Captain!!"
>BBBZZZFFFTTT!!!
>"Captain, previous message locked into extractor beam. Begin reply?"
>"Mr. Riker... Make it so!"
>
>>
>>I thought Tom O'Haver's list was wonderful. But it's not as easy as
>>Dr. Miller would have us believe. I've programmed thousands of lines of
>>code, designed my own interface cards... and there are still things I
>>don't know and can't find out about. Example: I'm the most computer
>>literate in my dept - so who's going to teach ME about all of the
>>features of internet? Sure, we can all learn on our own -- but it helps
>>to have a critical mass of interest. That's one reason I've really
>>enjoyed this conference -- that "critical mass" is here and we can all
>>learn from each other (rather than all of us simultaneously reinventing
>>CAI).
>>

Hate to be the devil's advocate -- but havn't you answered your own
question -- if you are the most expert, having trained yourself, the first
thing you learned was presumably where to go to ask for help, whether
inside the instituton or out. -This is the value of the internet which I
admit I was late in coming to - there was no way I was going to be bothered
mucking about in 1960's technology such as UNIX mail -- when the user
friendly front ends became available, Eudora, Turbo-Gopher, Fetch etc. and
with Appletalk remote access for easy access from home both my wife and I
in radically different fields are extensive users and find the internet a
great aid for both teaching and research.

I may have slightly exagerated the contrasts in points of view on this
paper to help the discussion along, but my observations of who uses
computers and how are from the perspective of someone who has chaired both
our chemistry dept. and more recently our computer science department and
who has served three years on the University Promotion and Tenure committee
where I saw across the whole institution who did what, what they planned to
do, and dealt with ratings of both teaching and research, not the latter
exclusively as has been implied by some participants. At least at Brock,
good teaching is valued. Prof. Mary Francis Richardson in our department
who I have mentored over the years was the CASE Professor of the year in
Canada last year.
>
>Michael brings up a good point. Perhaps we need to create a USENET newsgroup
>for chemistry instructors? That way, well after this on-line conference is
>over, we can still benefit from our 'critical mass' of knowledge!
>
>Tony ;>
>
>
>Date this awe-inspiring message was sent: 21-JUL-1993 17:39:36
>*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
>| Anthony V. Rosati | |
>| Department of Chemistry, | "A nation that cannot think, |
>| Georgetown University | cannot survive." |
>| Washington, D.C. 20057-2222 | |
>| ROSATI@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU | - Norman Mailer, 1992 |
>| A_ROSATI@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU | National Press Club |
># ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== # ======== #
>| Information Exchange Coordinator and Member, Board of Directors |
>| National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS) |
>| 1993 - 1994 |
>*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*

Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
ex-Chair, Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.

Phone (416) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (416) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 10:07:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 10 -Discussion

Paper 10 - Discussion

PERSONAL COMPUTERS IN TEACHING PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

Aleksei A. Kubasov, Vassilii S.Lyutsarev, Kirill V.Ermakov,
Chemical Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Republic.
E-MAIL: LASER@mch.chem.msu.su

I am impressed by the number and quality of students you have at Moscow
State University. In the undergraduate Physical Chemistry course at Clarkson
we concentrate on teaching basic concepts. (This course is taught in
the third year for chemistry majors and in the second year for
chemical engineering students.) Oscillating chemical reactions (Section
I-A-2), consecutive reactions (I-B-1), heating with constant rise of
temperature (I-B-2) and the examples in Section I-B-3 would be considered too
advanced.

As a matter of fact these topics might not even be covered in a graduate course
in kinetics or thermodynamics.

Your figures are very nice.

Donald Rosenthal
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 11:21:42 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: Paper 10 -Discussion

Like Don Rosenthal at Clarkson I teach mostly fundamentals to students
in their first course of Physical Chemistry. My students also have
weak math skills and very little computer experience - some none at all.
One of my tasks is to convince them that they won't break the computer
if they touch it. Their frustration level gets very high because
they don't know too many of the basics described in Tom's list. I don't
think that I am the only physical chemistry teacher with this problem.

While my students are behind in technology and skills they are not behind
in willingness to learn provided that the supportive environment is present.
This includes a mix of hard and easy tasks and mutual support among
themselves and support from me. Support comes in many forms. These are
as you know providing resources like user manuals and working through
some of the stuff in the manuals with them. Being up front about what
they are expected to learn and accomplish is important too. Too often
courses are set up as a competition in which the students try to
out guess the teacher especially on exams. I think some one else said
much the same thing this week.

I have used computers in PChem lab for the past five or six years. My
work in this area was initiated by the interest of one of my students.
He came to school part time and worked full time. We started with
Lotus vr. 2.0 for data analysis and then moved on to simple data
acquisition using the RS232 serial port. I three years ago I added
a simple modeling program DTMM exercise and this year the students
used mathcad for the first time. Prior to their experience with these
tools in PChem they have never used a math program or a modeling program,
only a f my (and many other faculty's) students do not have the math and
physics preparation, especially for those students who are taking pchem
for the first time, the the Moscow University students have, there is
much in this paper that I see potentially useful for teaching
beginning pchem students.

In particular the use of three dimensional graphs would be more
effective with the computer and the emphasis on derivation and not
enough emphasis on comprehension and interpretation in the first
pchem course. What is the significance of the material we teach?
Do the students see any significance in the maze of integrals and
partials? Would the students learn better and appreciate better if they
had more responsibility to figure things out for themselves while
using well designed learning materials? What student would bother to
hand calculate and then plot the data for 10 graphs by hand in order to
figure out how the rate constants affect the shape of curves for
consecutive irreversible 1st order kinetics? With a program
like mathcad or with a spreadsheet they can do 30 or so after
the equations are set up, all in 30 min or less. Boy do they
appreciate the importance of computers in education after an
exercise like that. I've seen it happen. It works.

Consider also the effect of constructing a set of drug structures
with a molecular modeling program. Students can do this with
a variety of programs and in some places this is done in
freshman chemistry. At one level they gain a great insight
into the structure of molecules, stabilities etc. this then moves
to the organic class where they can model chemical reactions and
explore orbital interactions as a supplement to their lectures
on this topic. Then in pchem they can examine the different parts
of the potential function and explore the significance of each part.
This is modern and up to date theoretical pchem and not beyond the
abilities of the beginning student if we don't loose them in a forest
of equations prematurely.

Of course I am not against mathematical rigor. I enjoy math and it is
one of the reasons why I became a pchem student and did work in QM and
now in MM and MD. However as an educator I can expect my students to
run before they can walk and they won't even walk if they don't think
that there is anything interesting at the end of the road.

I want to thank Prof Kubasov and his colleagues. I am going to try to
get one or two of his ideas into my pchem course this year. I will
have great fun doing so and so will my students. After all I do this
work because it is intellectually pleasurable, fun, and I want to share
that enjoyment with my students.
Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 10:43:44 PST
From: "Edward H. Piepmeier"
Subject: Re[2]: Paper 9 discussion

JOHN WOOLCOCK raises some important questions. Some partial
(perhaps indirect) answers from the field of education follow.
He writes:

>There are important implications here. Perhaps the battle over calculators is
>past but not for computers although that time is fast approaching. As
>computers and calculators become more similar (laptops and graphics calculators
>are already here and being more widely used) we will be forced to deal with
>this issue. Perhaps this time we can get it right! But one type of information
>is often missing: what is the impact on student learning or cognitive skills
>caused by each type of software (spreadsheet, instrument simulator, etc.)?

>These ideas reminded me of a presentation given by Joseph Casanova on the use
>of the "Computer As Electronic Blackboard" given a few years ago at an ACS
>meeting. In this paper he described how he used a spreadsheet, structure
>drawing program, molecular modeling and hypermedia to create an entire year of
>organic lectures that was presented using only a computer. One of the things he
>found was that: "The electronic blackboard encourages greater reliance by the
>instructor on metaphor, illustration and imaging, but the instructional
>effectiveness of these techniques is unclear...

The field of education has identified three types of learning
modes: auditory, visual and kinesthetic. Each person learns
more quickly or effectively using one of these learning modes
rather than the other two (although all three learning modes
may be active to differernt extents in any one individual).
It seems to me that computer images help those whose primary
learning mode is visual.

>but, for example, what effect does using graphing programs have on students
>that use them in lab courses? Do they need to do it the Rold fashioned wayS
>even once?

The kinesthetic learners will benefit most from doing a manual
plot. Visual learners will benefit most from seeing things on
a screen. I can imagine that kinesthetic learners might also
benefit by plotting with drawing programs that allow points
and lines to be placed on a screen by a mouse.

>..."In changing the lecture priority
>from words and theory to graphics and visualization, the electronic blackboard
>conveys to students a different set of priorities within the discipline which
>may or may not be tested (using a written exam) by the instructor but may be
>important in their future work."

a) This change will simply help the visual learners at the
expense of the auditory and kinesthetic learners (notetaking
benefits kinesthetic learners.) It seems to me that we need
to at least balance our presentations if we intend to include
all types of learners. (Notice that statement does not answer
the questions,"SHOULD we include all types of learners?" or
"Do some types of learners make "better" scientists than
others?")

b) In a sense, we as professors are already setting the
priorities - usually by mimicking the things that WE were
taught, and without testing whether those things are the best
(we assumed they were adequate because our students somehow
succeeded after they got their degrees, or perhaps because we
were taught in a well respected college or university.) But
now things change so rapidly that we can no longer rely solely
on our older ways to keep up with what is happening outside
educational institutions.

Ed Piepmeier
Department of Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
piepmeie@ccmail.orst.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 13:58:21 -0400
From: Robert Nelson
Subject: Re: Paper 9 comments

In reply to Dr. Lata's query agout generating the log table from
logs of 1, 2, 3, and 10. I did this one time while waiting for a train.
1,2,3,4,5 (10/2), 6,7(approx sqrt of 50) 8, 9 are easy.

Bob Nelson, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Chemistry - 8064
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30460-8064
912-681-5675
rnnelson@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 11:10:11 GMT
From: Heacock-David
Subject: FW: Paper 9 and various discussions

Second Try.
__________________________________________________________
To: Oas
From: Heacock-David on Wed, Jul 21, 1993 3:29 PM
Subject: Paper 9 and various discussions

I should first start by saying I am not part of the educational
community but work in private industry. I have joined in on this
conference because of personal interest and possible application to
other technical conferences. However, at times I feel like an
instructor because of the lack of computer skills that many individuals
display both inside and outside my company. I should also add that in
my department we mainly have people with at least 4 year technical
college degrees In reviewing paper 9 and at least some of the
discussions I find that many of the problems being discussed are similar
to those noted in industry. The problems with adaquate amounts of time
to learn the software and hardware is always present. Some of us feel
the solution is to have additional staffing of individuals who are
basically problem solvers. The problem again comes down to the limited
money and time available to hire these individuals. However, in many
cases there seems to be a lack of a clear objective when it comes to
using computers for a specific task. Tied to this is the problem that
once an objective has been established, it seems to grow out of control
until simple solutions are no longer possible. Another factor seems to
be that the learning rate of individuals is considerably different. In
fact, some individuals do not have the desire to learn how to use
computers even when the advantages are explained to them. I often
wonder if there isn't some built in human flaw that needs to be
corrected early on in the training cycle once it has been identified.
At best I would consider myself a hacker with limited computer skills.
However, others within our organization consider me as very
knowledgeable and this deeply concerns me. I would like to at least
take this opportunity to thank Tom O'Haver for the opportunity to
participate in this conference as I have found the information very
useful.

David Heacock
Technical Director
Liberty Mutual Ins.
Pleasanton, CA
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 16:32:10 MST
From: Elizabeth Dorland
Subject: Chemed-l vs. Usenet

One of my goals for the little remaining in the summer is to get
familiar with Usenet. (First I have to find the news reading software
for NeXT computer...anyone know where to look?) However, maybe those
of you who are already into this can answer a couple of questions
that may interest other participants.

I have been on chemed-l for a year or two and have found it extremely
interesting. I am wondering whether the discussion and/or
participitants in sci.edu and sci.chem are overlapping, or
substantially different from the chemed-l discussions/participants.
Is the experience of belonging to a newsgroup similar to being on a
listserv? My time suddenly becomes very limited when school starts,
and sometimes my e-mail load overwhelms me as it is. As bitnet fades
away, will listservs do the same? Is Usenet the wave of the future,
or something entirely different in concept, not serving the same
function listservs do? (You can see I haven't gotten too far with my
"homework goal" yet. Sorry if these questions are naive)

Liz Dorland
Mesa Community College, Mesa, AZ (recently transfered from Glendale)
dorland@next.mc.maricopa.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 23:39:49 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Paper 10 - Choice of ChiWriter

I am curious about your choice of ChiWriter as your word processor. We use it
at Monroe Community College and very much like its wysiwyg approach to multi-
level formulas. It is not very popular in the US. I was surprised that you
indicated all your faculty used it. How did you come to choose it over some of
the more popular wordprocessors in widespread use such as WordPerfect, etc.?

I have enjoyed your paper and figures.

___________________________________________________________
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:29:31 MSD
From: "Laser Chemistry Dept., MSU"
Subject: Re: Paper 10 - Choice of ChiWriter

Frank M. Lanzafame writes:
>I am curious about your choice of ChiWriter as your word processor.

I think this is the result of specific Russian conditions.
Personal computers became to appear in Russian scientific and
educational institutions late in the 80s. In most cases they were
PCs and XTs with CGA adapters and their compatibles. The largest
problem was to teach them "speak" and print in Russian. In such
situation an easy to use ChiWriter was an ideal choice. Due to its
Font Designer one could create Cyrillic fonts for screen and
printer and prepare, for example, thesis on a computer.

Now the situation (slowly) changes: ChiWriter v.4 has become
much more complex and it can hardly compete with Windows editors
on more powerful PCs. My personal choice is WinWord with
its excellent Equation Editor.

Vassili S. Lyutsarev
Chemical faculty, Moscow state university.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 08:03:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Paper 10 - Choice of ChiWriter
In-Reply-To: <9307231124.AA03881@umd5.umd.edu>

ChiWriter does have the advantage of running well on modest
hardware. It is used here by a few people in our physics
department. Most faculty and students have moved on to modern
windowing environents, however. Since the late 80's, we in
Chemistry have been using MathType, an excellent and very intuitive
pop-up equation editor that works with any word processor and which
eventually became integrated into Word as its built-in equation
editor. It does require more modern (i.e. expensive) hardware,
however.

As for fonts, it's interesting that the Russian community here in
the USA often uses Macintoshes for their newsletters and
correspondence because Cyrillic fonts for screen and printer have
been available for many years.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 08:17:05 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: Paper 9 discussion

How does one subscribe to the newsgroups and listservers, particularly
CHEMED-L?
Barbara Gaddis
U.C.C.S.
Colorado Springs, CO
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 11:54:57 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: FW: Paper 9 and various discussions
In-Reply-To: <01H0UJI3QXWA00176U@crcvms.unl.edu> from "Heacock-David" at Jul
22, 93 11:10:11 am

Two items have come by that warrant some sort of response.

>> The field of education has identified three types
>> of learning modes: auditory, visual and
>> kinesthetic. Each person learns more quickly or
>> effectively using one of these learning modes
>> rather than the other two (although all three
>> learning modes may be active to different extents
>> in any one individual). It seems to me that
>> computer images help those whose primary learning
>> mode is visual.

In a neurologically-based learning model, inputs come in
parallel, and go out in parallel. Try as one might, intuition,
common-sense, and horse sense to the contrary, brain sites
where EVERYTHING COMES TOGETHER have yet to be found. It is
clear that a great deal of our wiring involves sharing
information back and forth. Nevertheless, there doesn't seem
to be a home office with a CEO.

Performance depends upon similarity of conditions. So, when
trained to solve certain problems or answer certain questions
is a room pervaded by an odor (chocolate, cinnamon), testing
results are best when the test room also is pervaded with the
same odor. Results like this make connectionist models of
learning (parallel distributed processing models) quite
compelling.

>> I often wonder if there isn't some built in human
>> flaw that needs to be corrected early on in the
>> training cycle once it has been identified.

While there is an enormous genetic component to our ability to
function as learners, we nevertheless are born largely unwired.
When we bumble around as learners -- exhibiting misconceptions
among other things -- it isn't necessarily because we have
learned something incorrectly or never learned it at all or
were born with some false intuitions about how the world works.
The process of wiring and rewiring takes a lot of time, and the
closer one starts out to being suitably wired to demonstrate a
particular learning, the easier completion of that wiring is.

If we find a magic bullet that changes the process, it is
likely to kill all of us. The process of wiring and rewiring
is what being human is all about. Mentally speaking, we can
grow, change our views, learn, forget, and so forth. We can
use the cognitive artifacts of today to invent new cognitive
artifacts tomorrow, and these will change how much we must rely
an internal wiring versus how much we can appropriately port
out to the artifact.

What educators have discovered is that approaching only one
input system gets results that are less impactful than when
approaching as many inputs as possible -- sight, sound, touch.
There are limits. I for one am NOT willing to teach in
cinnamon-scented rooms so that I can test in cinnamon-scented
rooms. My point in raising this perspective is to note that
there is a rich and growing literature that does not come from
"education" but that does hope to shed enormous light on
learning and, to the degree that the activities are coupled,
teaching.

Two references may help:

(1) "Neural Darwinism" by Gerald Edelman, Basic books, 1987.
(2) The September 1992 issue of Scientific American, all
articles but especially "The Problem of Consciousness" by Crick
and Koch, since that deals with an area of very high
controversy.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 12:46:00 -0300
From: MAINIERI@IF1.UFRGS.BR
Subject: Re: Paper 10 - Choice of ChiWriter

The program ChiWriter is a very simple program.
I recommend WIMP 2001 and ChemWindows for Windows, these very well.

OBS: I don't speak (and write) english very well.

=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 11:26:52 CDT
From: Brad Thompson
Subject: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

A thought on whether students should do the "fundamental operations"
-- graphing, doing least squares operations, titration, or even
multiplication/division -- should be done a few times at the fundamental
level before students are given the black boxes:

I understand that students in the German programs to produce machinists
and tool-makers still spend some time early on, filing metals by hand!
Those who haven't done some machining probably view that requirement as
sadistic. Actually, the difference in "feel" between, day, brass and pure
nickel, is important if one plans to machine them. Programming Automated
mills and lathes won't ever give one that feel.

I note in many of my younger colleagues a lack of "feel" for numerical
quantities, for instruments, for the behavior of chemicals, and even for
concepts such as orbitals. I describe this to myself as the "black-box
syndrome". We all use black boxes. However, every time we do, we give up
some feel for what is going on. It may be a necessary compromise, but it
is a compromise. That being the case, there isn't a "best" way in every
case.

Myself, I'm inclined to have students calculate, graph, etc., a few by
hand, then use the "automated power tools". I agree that there's much to
be said for giving them the power to do lots of graphs and fits.

By the way, a pocket calculator is a black box, but so was a slide rule
or a log table -- most users didn't have the least idea why those tools
worked! The use of each, however, had its own lessons to teach on the
behavior of numbers. Every exercise on a slide rule reinforced what an
uncertainty in a result is, in a way that a calculator never does. And the
ratio concept is visible on a slide rule. And we all learned to estimate
between scale divisions -- something lots of our students can't do these
days. And as for log tables, how many of our students can interpolate
reliably?

Is interpolating, in a table or on a scale, still a valuable skill?
The hand calculator allows us to require more -- every student now owns a
powerful numerical-analysis lab (which we grossly under-use). The tragedy
is that we didn't note what might be lost in the change, and make efforts
to pick up those skills elsewhere.

H. Bradford Thompson [Brad]
Scholar in Residence, Chemistry & Physics
bradt@gac.edu Gustavus Adolphus College
Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 13:13:17 -0400
From: Mary Swift
Subject: Understanding What One Is Doing

My experience is much the same as Brad Thompson's. Some of the younger
members of my department appear to have little understanding of the under-
lying (bio)chemistry of what they are doing. Recently I proposed a new
computer skills/concepts course for biochemistry majors and my colleagues
were unable to understand that I wanted the students to devise the
computation (set up the problem). I do not propose to teach kinetics or
statistics just how to use the computer and appropriate software to solve
a problem that the student has. My colleagues said well the computer just
does it, right? Frankly, I didn't know how to respond civilly (probably
the influence of one of our frequent contributors). My goal in proposing
the course is to teach the applications/pitfalls of this powerful tool.
the subject/problems just happen to be drawn from the life sciences. Again
there was sort of an unexpectee
d response from some faculty.

At any rate, we have to decide to what extent we are training "blind"
technicians or thinking/critical researchers. Once this is answered the
question of whether a black box or understanding "it all, top to bottom"
approach will be answered. In answering this question what is the goal
(in the late 20th century) of undergraduate education? graduate education?
It seems to me (on my worst days) that undergraduate education is remedial
high school. If this trend is not broken what happens to gradur
graduate education?

Mary L. Swift
Biochemistry
Howard University
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 13:39:33 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

> A thought on whether students should do the "fundamental operations"
> -- graphing, doing least squares operations, titration, or even
> multiplication/division -- should be done a few times at the fundamental
> level before students are given the black boxes:
> I understand that students in the German programs to produce machinists
> and tool-makers still spend some time early on, filing metals by hand!
> Those who haven't done some machining probably view that requirement as
> sadistic. Actually, the difference in "feel" between, day, brass and pure
> nickel, is important if one plans to machine them. Programming Automated
> mills and lathes won't ever give one that feel.
>
> I note in many of my younger colleagues a lack of "feel" for numerical
> quantities, for instruments, for the behavior of chemicals, and even for
> concepts such as orbitals. I describe this to myself as the "black-box
> syndrome". We all use black boxes. However, every time we do, we give up
> some feel for what is going on. It may be a necessary compromise, but it
> is a compromise. That being the case, there isn't a "best" way in every
> case.
>
> Myself, I'm inclined to have students calculate, graph, etc., a few by
> hand, then use the "automated power tools". I agree that there's much to
> be said for giving them the power to do lots of graphs and fits.
>
> By the way, a pocket calculator is a black box, but so was a slide rule
> or a log table -- most users didn't have the least idea why those tools
> worked! The use of each, however, had its own lessons to teach on the
> behavior of numbers. Every exercise on a slide rule reinforced what an
> uncertainty in a result is, in a way that a calculator never does. And the
> ratio concept is visible on a slide rule. And we all learned to estimate
> between scale divisions -- something lots of our students can't do these
> days. And as for log tables, how many of our students can interpolate
> reliably?
>

I recall from the days of the slide rule that most students didn't achieve
this level of appreciation of numbers unless they used the slide rule
extensively. Estimating between scale divisions also came with practice using
allot of instruments that required such a skill. But we can put things
in perspective by considering that most people today can't make their own
bread. To make bread requires a feel for the dough and knowledge of
the behaviour of yeast. Today we use other criteria to choose bread. We
don't even think about the criteria. Back to chemistry. Perhaps we are
in a transition stage where the necessary skills and techniques need to
be designed in order to give students a feel for numbers. Using paper
and pencil and long hand math is not the best way to do this as someone
said earlier on the discussion of this topic. The same thought patterns
with respect to graphs and an appreciation for numbers can be achieved
by using modern technology. The problem may lie in the way technology
has been used so far not in the technology itself.

> Is interpolating, in a table or on a scale, still a valuable skill?
> The hand calculator allows us to require more -- every student now owns a
> powerful numerical-analysis lab (which we grossly under-use). The tragedy
> is that we didn't note what might be lost in the change, and make efforts
> to pick up those skills elsewhere.

If any skill is valuable then those who need it will eventually
learn how to do it. The problem is that the need must be perceived.
Since we all can't do every thing then some groups will need to specialize
in order to fill the void.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 13:50:45 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: pchem and papers 1,3,10

Regarding Paper 10 and Papers 1 & 3 with respect to pchem:

Aside from the issue of platform choice how extensively are
computers used in physical chemistry lecture and for physical
chemistry lab?

In pchem lab I perceive that use is very extensive in some
places but can be minimal in others and it seems that lab would
be a good place to start if one is not doing too much yet. This
may be easier now that most if not all new instruments come
with computers. I have some concerns about the 'black box'
problem but using a tool as a black box at first may have
redeeming qualities in that at least we can get something
modern done and build in understanding as we go along provided
that the computer interfaces are not used as a strategy for
loading up an already overburdened curriculum in pchem as well
as in the other subdisciplines of chemistry. It may be a good
idea to remember that whenever we put something in we must take
something out. Student learning is like a constant volume
problem. While student learning has a certain degree of
elasticity it can break and the student evaporate into another
discipline if sufficient time is not given for growth and
expansion at any point along the learning curve. (40% of the
students who start out with an interest in science at the start
of college drop out of science by graduation)

After reading these papers my opinion is that a much greater
effort needs to be made to get the computer into the pchem
classroom has been reinforced. Here again if the computer is
used in class then something else must go, specifically some of
the time that the teacher spends talking, usually too fast for
real learning to take place. It is no wonder that students
don't ask questions. They are overwhelmed.

My proposal is to give students a reasonable list of things
that they must do before class - read sections of the text or
provided notes and answer a set of questions and do a set of
problems. Hold the students accountable by administering a
quiz at the start of class. Use class time for exploring the
preassigned material more deeply - it is here that computers
come in handy - and the pchem class may even need to be run in
a computer lab at times. This approach radically changes the
role of the professor. S/He becomes a mentor/coach who uses
class dynamics and group dynamics to guide and implement the
learning process. In turn the students will no longer be
allowed to remain as passive blobs in an assigned seat. They
must work in class in assigned groups or pairs to complete the
activity for the day.

The usual argument offered to this type of teaching is that
there is too much content to cover in order to be able to do it
this way. My answer is as follows. first consider what
happens in a typical course. During lecture the valuable
information that we are transmitting in a very polished and
formal way usually goes in the eyes and out the pencil of the
student without much and possible no interaction with the
brain. The amount of learning seems to have little or no
connection to the quality of the lecture or preparation of the
professor. Where does the real learning occur - in the
library, the students rooms, the night before an exam? These
are all times when we have no access to them nor they to us.

How do we induce deep learning, the kind that sets patterns for
scholarship over a life time and creates a level of self
confidence in the student while engaging his mind actively in
the learning process?

A tall order isn't it. Impossible - NO. Hard work for the
instructor YES especially at first.

This is where the computer fits in beautifully. Move the
computer in pchem into the class for more than data analysis.
Use it to display complex diagrams. Use it for exploration of
equation properties. Use it to demonstrate reactions in
motion, molecules in motion, and experiments. Use it for
simulations. Get the students to see something, put it in 3D,
rotate it look at it from all angles, turn it inside out if
necessary, and then probe their understanding. We don't need
to wait for them to have the math skills of the Moscow
University students in order to give them a taste of doing and
appreciating more complex things. And when we give them all of
these things to do we must also give them time to reflect about
what they are doing. If not then we will be back to us covering
the material and them just nodding in agreement and amazement
and feeling that they will never be able to do these things on
their own.

It will be hard work to set up all of the learning tools and
assessment tools but if we don't start it will never get done.

Final questions:

1. What specific computer exercises do the pchem teachers do in
class as an alternative to lecturing about a topic?

2. What and how many computer illustrations/simulations do
pchem teachers use during class?

3. How do the pchem teachers assess the effectiveness of these
alternatives to straight lecture?

4. Other than hour exams, quizzes and homework (is it graded?)
how do the pchem teachers assess student learning of a
particular topic?

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 15:47:01 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: Understanding What One Is Doing

Mary Swift writes
>
> My experience is much the same as Brad Thompson's. Some of the younger
> members of my department appear to have little understanding of the under-
> lying (bio)chemistry of what they are doing. Recently I proposed a new
> computer skills/concepts course for biochemistry majors and my colleagues
> were unable to understand that I wanted the students to devise the
> computation (set up the problem). I do not propose to teach kinetics or
> statistics just how to use the computer and appropriate software to solve
> a problem that the student has. My colleagues said well the computer just
> does it, right? Frankly, I didn't know how to respond civilly (probably
> the influence of one of our frequent contributors). My goal in proposing
> the course is to teach the applications/pitfalls of this powerful tool.
> the subject/problems just happen to be drawn from the life sciences. Again
> there was sort of an unexpected response from some faculty.

So our colleagues are as mystified about the potential good and potential
abuses of computers as are our students. All the more need to develop
strategies that force utilization of the computer in an appropriate way.
The question is how do we do this. I don't think that manual graphs and
hand calculations are the way. Mary has a good idea here in wanting to
teach the limits and extent of the usefulness of the computer to
young chemists.

> At any rate, we have to decide to what extent we are training "blind"
> technicians or thinking/critical researchers. Once this is answered the
> question of whether a black box or understanding "it all, top to bottom"
> approach will be answered. In answering this question what is the goal
> (in the late 20th century) of undergraduate education? graduate education?
> It seems to me (on my worst days) that undergraduate education is remedial
> high school. If this trend is not broken what happens to gradur
> graduate education?
>
>

There will always be a need for technicians but the greater need is for critical
thinking from all science students. Critical thinking in general among college
students may be at a low and there are many who are working in this area
especially in writing programs and the social sciences.

Does anyone have any information about assessment of critical thinking
in undergraduate and graduate chemistry students? I heard that there were
some studies done and that the results were not too good. Anyone have any
references on this? Most of my sources say things are bad but I'm looking
for some data.

Mary, could the feeling of doing remedial work have something to do with the
amount of material students are expected to learn today? There is certainly
more in pchem and organic chem texts than when I was a student 30 years ago.
I don't deny that entry level math and verbal skills are less than in the
past. Since this is so what should we do to change the situation? If
we start to improve education at the elementary and highschool levels it
will be 4-12 years before we see results. The new surgeon general appointee
said something interesting. She said that it is a wise old man who plants
a tree that he will never live long enough to sit beneath.

Maybe we can't fix it all but we sure can fix one student at a time, one
topic at a time. I trust that the tree will grow.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 15:26:53 -0400
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

I am somewhat puzzled by this "old tool vs new tool argument".
I distinctly remember learning graphing and interpolation in
9th grade algebra II class. I could perhaps understand the reason for
not using computer graphing in 9th grade education, but I
do not see any reason for using hand drawn graphs at the
college level. Shouldn't students understand graphing before they
come to college?

George Long
IUP
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 15:48:14 -0400
From: JOHN WOOLCOCK
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

I am in sympathy and agree with many of the ideas expressed in this discussion.
With that in mind here is a scenario to consider. Suppose some
company figured out that by creating a "significant figures" button they could
sell millions of their calculators to students in science courses. This button
when pressed, automatically redisplayed a calculated result with the correct
number of significant figures. How would this change the way we teach our
courses? How would this change the thinking and working skills that our student
would attain?

John Woolcock
Chemistry Department
Indiana Univ. of PA
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 17:14:48 EDT
From: Sherman Henzel
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

Sorry about that last message.e.

>I am somewhat puzzled by this "old tool vs new tool argument".
>I distinctly remember learning graphing and interpolation in
>9th grade algebra II class. I could perhaps understand the reason for
>not using computer graphing in 9th grade education, but I
>do not see any reason for using hand drawn graphs at the
>college level. Shouldn't students understand graphing before they
>come to college?-

Yes they should and being able to use algebra as a tool would be nice too. The
reality is that my students can not graph (nor can they make sense out of
graphs) and they can not do basic algebra.

___________________________________________________________
| Sherman Henzel Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5124 |
| Internet: shenzel@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 18:12:25 -0600
From: Gerald Morine
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Brad Thompson writes (emphasis added):

> I note in many of my younger colleagues a lack of "feel" for numerical
> quantities, for instruments, for the behavior of chemicals, and even for
> concepts such as orbitals. I describe this to myself as the "black-box
> syndrome". We all use black boxes. However, every time we do, WE GIVE UP
> SOME FEEL FOR WHAT IS GOING ON. It may be a necessary compromise, but it
> is a compromise.

I suppose what is "going on" has to do with determining what factors in an
equation are most important in the magnitude of the final result and which
factors are most important in the precision of the final result.
Most students don't see these relationships, either from the algebraic
equations or the equations with data plugged in. I don't know how to teach
them to perceive such relations. Simple demonstration and small amounts of
practice don't do it very well, for my students at least.

John Woolcock's (whimsical?) idea for a significant figures button on a
calculator sounds like a step in the right direction, but it is not enough.

Perhaps the approach most likely to be digestible by the greatest number of
students is to make more extensive use of the graphing capabilities of
computers, especially the graphing calculators now becoming common in calculus
courses at many schools.

Most chemistry students do not have the feel for numbers that many
analytical and physical chemists do. Instead, they become organic chemists,
polymer chemists or biochemists. Their special skills are spatial understanding
and visualization. The best way to teach them about data and equations is
therefore through graphics.

If this approach is taken, one need not be caught in the 1890-1910's trap
of having to express all relationships as straight lines. Polynomial,
logarithmic, exponential: they are all easy for the user of a graphing
calculator.

I agree with Theresa Julia Zielinski:

"Move the computer in pchem into the class for more than data analysis.
Use it to display complex diagrams. Use it for exploration of
equation properties. Use it to demonstrate reactions in
motion, molecules in motion, and experiments. Use it for
simulations. Get the students to see something, put it in 3D,
rotate it look at it from all angles, turn it inside out if
necessary, and then probe their understanding."

We must, however, have the students doing these things
themselves, on their laptops and graphing calculators. Students learn best by
doing, not watching. The technology is now cheap and easy to use. When physical
chemistry texts take this approach, we will be able to do a better job of
teaching all our students than we have ever done before.

Dr. Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University
ghmo%bsu.decnet@msus1.bitnet or ghmo@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 21:38:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Papers 1 and 9 - Discussion -

Re: What Chemistry Students Need to Know about Computers and Computing.

There has been some discussion about what chemistry teachers need to know and
what we should be teaching our students.

Let me just quote from Tom O'Haver's July 21 message:

> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:45:31 -0400
> From: "Thomas C. O'Haver"
> Subject: Re: Paper 9 - Brooks

> Jack Martin Miller writes:

>> A training leave will leave the person who required it trained
>> for the product or computer that was out of date by the time
>> they got to the point of having to use it.

(Tom O'Haver)
A. -------------------------------------------------------
> For this reason I believe that it is important to stress
> conceptual knowledge of the general principles more than
> procedural knowledge of specific products. .........
----------------------------------------------------------

B. -------------------------------------------------------

> What are the important concepts? Here's my list: The concept of
> a file and file type; the difference between a text and a binary
> file; between RAM and disk memory; between an application and a
> document; between a text editor, a word processor, and a desktop
> publishing (page layout) program; between a tab stop and a tab
> character; between spreadsheet and equation solvers; between a
> symbolic algebra program and a numeric analysis program; between
> plain text and formatted text; between a compiler and an
> interpreter; between machine language and assembly language;
> between serial and parallel; between digital and analog
> interfacing; the digital representation of a continuous analog
> signal by sampling; scaling, linear transformation, and
> calibration; the different ways to transfer data between
> programs and operating systems and platforms; the concept of the
> clipboard and copy and paste; the difference between raster and
> vector graphics; between screen resolution and printer
> resolution; between a client and a server; between a host and a
> local system, between local area and wide area networks; between
> network hardware and network protocols; between modem dialup,
> direct RS-232 connection, and a network connection; the
> principles of telecommunication; the common features af all
> terminal programs; the main classes of Internet tools.
> Tom O'Haver
> U. of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Several participants have supported this list.

Jack Miller (Wed. 21 Jul 1993 15:29) said:
> Most of Tom's "concepts" I teach to my 4th year undergrads if they
> don't already know them in 3 or 4 hours. .............

* I don't know whether this is possible or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

* I agree with A above.
*
* With reference to B above:
* I don't agree that these are the most important concepts we
* can teach our CHEMISTRY STUDENTS.
* I believe that for the chemist the computer is a tool and that what
* CHEMISTS need to know is how the computer can be used by and help
* the CHEMIST. The chemistry student should be able to USE these tools
* and understand and interpret the RESULTS obtained with these tools.
* He need not fully understand these tools (in the same way we do not
* need to fully understand how an NMR instrument nor molecular
* modelling software really works).
*
* We can not nor should we try to teach our students EVERYTHING about
* computers. Our objectives should be modest and will obviously
* depend upon the hardware and software we have available for them.
*
* At Clarkson I would like our undergraduates to use the computer for:
* 1. Word Processing
* 2. Numerical methods
* 3. Statistical methods
* 4. Spreadsheets
* 5. Molecular modelling
* 6. Plotting
* 7. Data bases
*
* 8. Students should use and know something about the capabilities of
* computer interfaced instruments.
* 9. Students should have some familiarity with electronic mail and
* networks.
* 10. Students should be able to program in a general purpose higher level
* language.
*
* I do not expect a student to become expert in any of the above.
* I do expect them to know at least a little about each of these.
* We could argue about the extent of their expertise. I believe
* the most important thing is that they know that such software
* and hardware exists - that they have used it and to some degree
* can interpret what they obtain from the software and hardware.
* For example, if a student has used a reasonably sophisticated
* word processor, he will know what word processors can do.
* From my perspective, the fact that there are better word
* processors now or there will be better word processors ten years
* from now is largely irrelevant.
*
* If you compare my list with Tom O'Haver's you will see it is quite
* different. My students will not necessarily know about many of the
* things on Tom's list - so be it.
*
* Another issue NOT addressed in this note is how computers should be
* used by INSTRUCTORS in TEACHING CHEMISTRY. Some of the other papers
* in this Conference address this issue. Perhaps some of the other
* participants might like to put together a list of hardware and
* software that is useful. There has been identification of specific
* software which is useful in particular courses.
*
* Donald Rosenthal
* Department of Chemistry
* Clarkson University
* ROSEN1@CLVM
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 23:57:48 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Dr. Gerald Morine writes in reply to my move the computer suggestion

>> "Move the computer in pchem into the class for more than data analysis.
>> Use it to display complex diagrams. Use it for exploration of
>> equation properties. Use it to demonstrate reactions in
>> motion, molecules in motion, and experiments. Use it for
>> simulations. Get the students to see something, put it in 3D,
>> rotate it look at it from all angles, turn it inside out if
>> necessary, and then probe their understanding."

> We must, however, have the students doing these things
> themselves, on their laptops and graphing calculators. Students learn best by
> doing, not watching. The technology is now cheap and easy to use. When physica
l
> chemistry texts take this approach, we will be able to do a better job of
> teaching all our students than we have ever done before.

This is precisely what I wanted to say. i am in favor of making pchem
a participatory experience not a spectator sport. Thank you for
making this idea clearer.

Theresa

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 21:22:10 PDT
From: Steve Lower
Subject: PChem and CAI
In-Reply-To: <9307241748.AA17604@whistler.sfu.ca>; from "theresa Julia
Zielinski" at Jul 24, 93 1:50 pm

> How do we induce deep learning, the kind that sets patterns for
> scholarship over a life time and creates a level of self
> confidence in the student while engaging his mind actively in
> the learning process?
[Theresa Julia Zielinski]

One strategem is to force students to make reasoned decisions, based upon
what they already know, thus helping them to build their own knowledge
based on a kind of "experience". This is exactly what lectures do NOT
do, and the reason that lectures have long been discredited as means of
conveying learning.

Some examples of CAI lessons that attempt to implement this strategy
can be found on our ftp server, truth.chem.sfu.ca, in pub/chem1 and
pub/chem1/mac. For any who did not catch the announcement on Chemed-L,
the latter contains electrochem.sea, a set of lessons on electrochemistry.
Although aimed at the general chemistry level, I have found that these and
similar lessons can challenge our fourth-year students who are very clever
at manipulating equations but have a weak grasp of what some of them mean.

--
Steve Lower - Dept of Chemistry - Simon Fraser University (lower@sfu.ca)
Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 Canada (604)-291-3353
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 01:49:39 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

George Long:
...
> I distinctly remember learning graphing and interpolation in
> 9th grade algebra II class. I could perhaps understand the reason for
> not using computer graphing in 9th grade education, but I
> do not see any reason for using hand drawn graphs at the
> college level. Shouldn't students understand graphing before they
> come to college?

Yes, students should, some do, but too many don't understand graphing before
they come to college. They also don't have the practice in word problems from
mathematics courses that they once did. Many do not have the facility with
language that they should.

The problem instructors now face is:

1. Do we just assume that they have had the experiences that they should
have had and go on losing many in the process?
2. Do we convert our introductory college courses to "remedial high school
courses"?
3. Do we try to meet the student where s/he is and try to help them achieve
at the college level even if this means SOME manual graphing which they
should have had but didn't?

I think we should try to include some remediation where possible. There are
limits, and some students should back up and take the prep courses that many of
us now offer. If we can help some students by addressing their lack of
graphing skills, algebra, and word problem experience, it seems worth the
effort particularly if we do not compromise the end product.

___________________________________________________________
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 07:46:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation
In-Reply-To: <9307242009.AA01251@umd5.umd.edu>

John Woolcock says:
> This button when pressed, automatically redisplayed a
> calculated result with the correct number of significant
> figures.

My feeling is the basic idea of significant figures, as an
estimator of uncertainty and the propagation of errors, is
fundamentally too crude and flawed to be worthy of much
effort on the part of programmers and calculator
manufacturers. The extended discussion some months ago on
CHEMED-L demonstrated several examples of absurd results that
can be obtained by literal and unthinking application of
significant figure rules. On the other hand, programmable
calculators and computers can perform quick, repetitive
re-calculations of multi-step problems. This gives us an
opportunity to demonstrate just how is is that uncertainties
in the "inputs" lead to uncertainties in the "outputs", by
repeating a calculation with variations in the "inputs". I
myself have a better understanding of error propagation for
having played around with this idea in spreadsheets. Indeed,
it is possible to design programs for numerical calculation
and/or graphing that allow (or require) the uncertainties for
each input number to be entered along with the number itself
and which carry along the uncertainties through all
calculations, possibly ending up as error bars on a graph.
(One commercial example of such a program in SerePlot).
Something like that would be a lot better, in my opinion,
than programming machines to mimic the crude rule-of-thumb
shortcut of significant figures. It would be interesting if
every computer program and calculator would have TWO fields
for every input and output, one for the number itself and one
for its uncertainty. If the uncertainty is zero, then SAY SO
by putting a zero in the uncertainty field.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 07:25:21 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

In response to George Long asking shouldnt' the students understand
graphing before they come to college: emphatically yes, they should.
However, a large portion (at least of our enteringgemeral chemistry
students do not. Not only can they not assign axes so that most of
the graph paper is used, but they don't know how to interpret the
graph -- what it represents about the trend of the data, what the
slope indicates, even how to calculate the slope. We have had to
design learning modules, teaching students how to (for probably the
twentieth time in their education) how to draw and interpret a
graph. We retest these same students after a semester, and while
their graphing skills show vast improvement, there are still a few
areas not mastered. To them, using a graphing program is a "black
box". Do we go ahead and let them do all the graphs on the computer,
knowing that a large portion do not understand what theyr'e doing?
Or try again to teach them? I'd appreciate any insights from yuou.
Barbara Gaddis
U.C.C.S.
Colorado Springs, CO
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 07:27:12 MDT
Reply-To: bagaddis@uccs.edu
From: bagaddis@HAPPY.UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

I am not able to read a large portion of my email this morning. I get a message
that says RMS-E-ENF, file not found. Am I doing something wrong? Barbara Gaddis
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 11:11:53 CDT
From: Brad Thompson
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Tom O'Haver's description of what we ought to be doing about teaching
precision is, in my opinion, a real keeper! The pocket calculator is
a powerful numerical laboratory that each of our students owns! The
spreadsheet is an even more powerful one, access permitting.

John Woolcock, with his "Sig.Fig.Button" suggestion, has provided a
fine example of the danger of black boxes. We could, indeed, encase
within a (physical) black box, the calculator, another (conceptual)
black box, the ridiculous text sig.fig. rules. Lots of users would
use the results blindly. Others, seeing or sensing the absurdity of
the answers, would blame numerical calculators as a class.

There's no "right" number of digits for a number, except (sometimes)
in a specific context. The text rules obscure this fact, and the
Sig.Fig.Button would hide it entirely.

I suggest that there's not a "right" line to draw through a set of
points either, except in context. Anyone who trusts black-box
methods and reports the results without understanding how they're
obtained is doing slipshod science. There's lots of that already --
let's not teach more of it!

H. Bradford Thompson [Brad]
Scholar in Residence, Chemistry & Physics
bradt@gac.edu Gustavus Adolphus College
Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 14:53:16 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: discussion

Barbara Gaddis wrote

> In response to George Long asking shouldnt' the students understand
> graphing before they come to college: emphatically yes, they should.
> However, a large portion (at least of our enteringgemeral chemistry
> students do not. Not only can they not assign axes so that most of
> the graph paper is used, but they don't know how to interpret the
> graph -- what it represents about the trend of the data, what the
> slope indicates, even how to calculate the slope. We have had to
> design learning modules, teaching students how to (for probably the
> twentieth time in their education) how to draw and interpret a
> graph. We retest these same students after a semester, and while
> their graphing skills show vast improvement, there are still a few
> areas not mastered. To them, using a graphing program is a "black
> box". Do we go ahead and let them do all the graphs on the computer,
> knowing that a large portion do not understand what they're doing?
> Or try again to teach them? I'd appreciate any insights from you.

At a critical thinking workshop for science teachers we heard and then
read about research that shows that it is very hard to correct
student misconceptions. Part of the graph problem is misconception.
Part is just not having done the required reflective type of study
need for mastery of the problem. Why should they learn this stuff
if they don't see how it is useful to them and their future career
choices. Repeating a topic by special learning modules and then
repeating the it again is an effective way to improve performance
as Barbara notes. Unfortunately there are limits as to the number
of times that a topic or idea can be presented in one course. This
led to the finding that there are a core of students , about 15%,
for whom no amount of extra practice will effect a change in their
understanding of a topic. I have heard that this is attributed
to their intellectual maturity level.

So where do we put the cut off in repetition in our teaching. I have
heard it suggested that if the concept is very important then we
work like the dickens to get the full 85%. My own experience however
says that that is very difficult. So now what do we do?

I think that step one is to have realistic expectations of the students
sitting in front of us. Some of them are not ready, willing or able
to do what is required in any particular course. These should be
advised into appropriate courses. Basic skills if necessary or
introductory type courses. This gives them an extra year to mature
and some time to pass muster for entrance into more rigorous courses.
This is made difficult by the cultural attachment to the magic 4 year
curriculum for all students. I have one advisee who is blossoming
because I told him that it is OK to take 5 years to finish college.
This removed alot of pressure and allowed him to work parttime so that
he could afford books and food.

Step two involves an appreciation by us that we don't have to do it all
in one course. After all we are where we are after many years of study.
Our students, if they continue their studies after leaving our schools
will have many more years of study ahead of them. By the time they are
40+ they too will be complaining about their students' poor virtual
reality skills (or what ever). Some of us will be around to remind
them of the great slide rule debate and computer graphing debates.

I guess my goal now for my students is to make them independent learners.
Give them some modern toys to play with, some modern tasks that develop
their basic skills, and challenge them to explore learning and the
creation of their own understanding of the world around us. I can't
give them mine. They must create their own.
Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:25:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: Papers 1 and 9 - Discussion -
In-Reply-To: <9307250140.AA07294@umd5.umd.edu>

Don Rosenthal and I are not really in disagreement. I agree
that all undergraduate chemistry students should know at least
a little about word processing, numerical methods, statistical
methods, spreadsheets, molecular modelling, plotting, data
bases, interfaced instruments, electronic mail, networks, and
programming. Some of these (numerical methods, statistical
methods, plotting, data bases) do not necessarily depend on
computers; they were important before computers came into wide
use. Some of these (e.g. word processing, plotting) may
already have been done before in their earlier schooling, and
in any case have become so easy (even fun) with modern
software that most students pick it up with a minimum of
instruction. Others (e.g. molecular modeling, interfaced
instruments) surely deserve some place in any modern chemistry
curriculum. And, I'm sure most people will agree, it's the
underlying concepts that are important, not just how to work
a particular program. For example, as fun as it is to plot
data with a modern direct-manipilation plotting program, it's
the basic stuff - such as the difference between dependent and
independent variables; the difference between categorical and
numerical plots; scaling and scale expansion; the difference
between plotting untransformed data on log coordinates and
plotting log-transformed data on linear coordinates - that
remain important, whether one uses computer technology or
pencil-and-paper technology.

My list of concepts was not meant to be an agenda for a
required undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Rather, my list
originated in the following way. For one reason or another,
many people come to me when they have problems with computers
and computer applications. These people include undergraduate
and graduate students and faculty in chemistry and in other
science and non-science fields. Over the years I have come to
appreciate that most of these problems arise from a lack of
understanding of the basic concepts, not because people have
never heard of or know nothing about the basic kinds of
computer applications. Parva sciencia est res periculosa. The
problem is that many people just don't think or don't care
about the underlying concepts. Computers are now part of our
world, and scientists like to understand the world. I don't
mean HOW everything works in tedious detail - that's for
specialists. I mean WHY things are the way they are. So my
list represents a (first-draft and no doubt incomplete)
attempt to write down some things about computers that if
people understood, it would save them a lot of time and make
their lives a little easier.

Now, the question is: who should learn these concepts - and
when and where? Well, no single answer is possible, because
the state of technology, of our educational system, and of
our own conceptual growth and experience is changing all the
time. What was impractical and useless a few years ago may
become a basic literacy skill in a few years. Each school
has to plan a curriculum, under many external and internal
constraints, that meets the needs of students, their future
employers, and society as best they can. Don Rosental
focuses on the needs of CHEMISTS, and I agree; it is our first
responsibility to train future chemists. His list is
probably very reasonable for the BS level chemist. Some may
wish to do a bit more; perhaps some a bit less. But
learning does not stop, one hopes, with a BS in chemistry.
In addition to being chemists, we are also professionals,
scientists, and perhaps even intellectuals. We are living in
"interesting times" in terms of computational and
communications technology. Let us show students that we are
interested in the world in which we live and in the artifacts
of our culture - especially those that depend on science and
technology - and that we are never going to stop learning.

Tom O'Haver
U. of Maryland
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:38:25 EDT
From: Allan Smith
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation
In-Reply-To: Message of Sat,
24 Jul 1993 15:48:14 -0400 from

I really like the idea of a significant figures button or function on
a calculator or equation solver. The programming should not be difficult:
look at the numbers entered by the user, determine their number of
sig. fig.s, then apply the rules we argued interminably about several weeks
ago. Once there is agreement on a set of rules, the algorithm can't be
far down the road. I'd pay a bit more for software or a calculator which
did sig figs correctly, since this is the kind of activity computers
SHOULD do.
We should spend the time with our students explaining to them why (and when)
significant figures are really significant. I never go over the sig. fig.
rules in lecture, but I do talk about significant figures. I ask students
what they think the population of the US is that day. We then look at the
1980 and 1990 Census Bureau data (reported to an impressive 8 significant
figures), estimate the rate of change of population, and finally the
number of seconds that an eight-digit number would exactly represent the
US population on any day.
Allan Smith, Chemistry Department, Drexel University
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:52:00 EDT
From: to2
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods
In-Reply-To: <9307251634.AA22675@umd5.umd.edu>

Computational black boxes are always with us. Consider just four
examples that have many important applications in chemistry and in
other sciences: the square root, matrix inversion, the Fourier
transform, and eigenvalues/eigenvectors. How important is it
to be able to calculate these by hand, i.e. using only good old
paper-and-pencil technology? How do you personally calculate
these in practice? Using some sort of calculator or computer, of
course. Is it really important that we know and teach how to
compute these things by hand? Not in my opinion. So what is
important? To me, it is understanding what these things mean,
where they come up and why, what the important applications are,
and - very important - what the limits of applicability are and
how to check to see if the black box computation is right. (It's
also nice to know some programs and programming languages that have
those functions as elementary operations. Of course, almost
anything has a square root function, but not everything has the
others).

O.K., O.K., maybe it's good to do it by hand ONCE, with a simple
example, just to get the flavor, but then let me at the computer.

Tom O'Haver
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:12:42 -0600
From: Gerald Morine
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

There have been lists by Don Rosenthal and Tom O'Haver of the items about
computers that all students should know. There is the question of how and
when the students should know these things. Right now, we cover computer
interfacing, computer control, and databases (as specific topics of study)
in Instrumental Analaysis, in the 4th year. I assume everyone agrees this
is too late.

It would be easy to say that computers should be part of all courses, and
we do use instructional software in an increasing number, but most of my
colleagues are busy with chemistry and don't want to divert any time for
formal instruction in RAM/ROM and the Internet.

Isn't the place for formal instuction in the topic "Chemistry and
Computers" in the first analytical lecture course? We use "Quantitative
Chemical Analysis," by Daniel Harris. It is an excellent analytical text, IMHO.
The only mention of computers, however, is in one footnote.

If computer topics are going to be introduced into the chemistry curriculum
early on, and at all institutions, it has to be included in commercial
instructional material. This might be through an INEXPENSIVE paperback
supplement initially, and later by inclusion, I think, in analytical textbooks.

Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University
ghmo@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:52:22 EDT
From: Allan Smith
Subject: Re: Papers 1 and 9 - Discussion -
In-Reply-To: Message of Sat,
24 Jul 1993 21:38:00 EDT from

On Don Rosenthal's discussion of Tom O'Haver's list of central concepts
chemistry students should know about computers: I favor Tom's list,
although I think that Don's enumeration of important applications for
students to use is right on target. Regarding the debate on whether to
require students to learn to program in a language: we don't have such
a requirement at Drexel any more, but the change has come only in the last
two years. Our computer science faculty developed an attractive course in
which the central concepts of any procedural computer language ( variables,
conditional statements, loops, breaking a large task into maneagable
subtasks, and a few others) were all illustrated by features in
applications packages the students are learning to use. For example, the
concept of a variable was illustrated by explaining how to do a mail-merge
and send one letter to a whole mailing list, using a word processor. The
change of emphasis leaves students not "knowing FORTRAN" - or Pascal or
c or BASIC - but having a firm idea of what computer scientists consider
fundamental to their discipline.
Is a computer really a tool? I think the time has come to leave that
analogy behind. A computer is not like a hammer or even a mechanical saw.
It is a rich environment in which one accomplishes mental work of many
kinds and qualities. The next time you hear your neighbors talk about
computers, listen to how they use the word - sometimes as an adjective,
sometimes as a noun, sometimes with scorn or deference or fear. A tool
does not invoke that richness of response.
I believe we should show our students by our example that the computer
is an indispensable part of the environment in which all chemists work
and think and create. It's presence has changed the way we all teach and
and do chemistry, and it will continue to do so.
Allan Smith, Chemistry Department, Drexel University
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 17:15:07 -0400
From: George Long
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

I have been following with great interest the debate over
Old vs. New tools. Also, I have been intrigued by David
Brooks statements regarding the application of a
neurological model to learning (and thus teaching). I have
noticed that there is a natural relationship between the two
threads that has not come out. To use graphing as an
example, consider first that many of you have reported still
requiring graphs drawn by hand, and I'm sure most high
schools still require students to graph by hand. computer
graphing is not in widespread use but yet we complain over
the lack of understanding of graphing that students have.
Where did the intuition for numbers go? Perhaps some will
point to the demon calculator, but many people who have had
calculators available from an early age have an intuitive
understanding of mathematical concepts.

Suppose the change in technology, in particular information
and entertainment technology experienced over the last two
decades has significantly changed the way students "neural
networks are wired." Modern information (and entertainment)
is transmitted in a dynamic, visual format. Using the
neurological model, it is not suprising that students do not
perform well on written word problems, in a quiet room, with
only a pencil and paper (and even a calculator). What is
suprising (now that I think about it) is that we expect
these students to perform the same as students thirty years
ago who were raised with radio and comic books, and who
were just experiencing live TV for the first time! Maybe
students today aren't poorer thinkers, just different
thinkers. Since the educator is the more experienced
individual, shouldn't S/He have the obligation to change,
and provide today's students with input more consistant with
the student previous experience (apply the New tools)? If
the Neurolgical model is correct, it would appear very
difficult to provide today's students with "intuition,
insight or critical thinking skills using "the old tools".

George Long
IUP
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 22:13:18 -0400
From: HARRY PENCE
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

Recently, George Long observed,

>Suppose the change in technology, in particular information
>and entertainment technology experienced over the last two
>decades has significantly changed the way students "neural
>networks are wired." Modern information (and entertainment)
>is transmitted in a dynamic, visual format. Using the
>neurological model, it is not suprising that students do not
>perform well on written word problems, in a quiet room, with
.only a pencil and paper (and even a calculator). What is
>suprising (now that I think about it) is that we expect
>these students to perform the same as students thirty years
>ago who were raised with radio and comic books, and who
>were just experiencing live TV for the first time! Maybe
>students today aren't poorer thinkers, just different
>thinkers. Since the educator is the more experienced
>individual, shouldn't S/He have the obligation to change,
>and provide today's students with input more consistant with
>the student previous experience (apply the New tools)? If
>the Neurolgical model is correct, it would appear very
>difficult to provide today's students with "intuition,
>insight or critical thinking skills using "the old tools".

I strongly agree with George. I think that current students are much
more experienced in obtaining knowledge by visual means than in any other way.
This is their prefered method of learning. Unfortunately, they have not been
trained very well to use this approach, because most of their formal education
has focused on reading and listening. To me, this suggests several important
conclusions. First, we should use visualization much more in our courses.
That shouldn't be difficult, since Chemistry is one of the most visually
interesting sciences. Second, we should focus more on teaching students how to
observe, that is, help them to sharpen the skills they already have. Finally,
we can't give up on reading and listening, but we must understand that we're
fighting an uphill battle, and special efforts and techniques will be necessary
to do what we once took for granted.

Graphical presentations can play a vital role in this process, so both
the hand-held graphical calculator and the spreadsheet are prime candidates for
introduction into the general chemistry course.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Harry E. Pence BITNET: PENCEHE@SNYONEVA |
| Professor of Chemistry PHONE: 607-436-3179 |
| SUNY Oneonta FAX: 607-436-2107 |
| Oneonta, NY 13820 |
____________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 21:51:41 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

> In message Brad Thompson writes:
> > A thought on whether students should do the "fundamental operations"
> > -- graphing, doing least squares operations, titration, or even
> > multiplication/division -- should be done a few times at the fundamental
> > level before students are given the black boxes:
> >
> > I understand that students in the German programs to produce machinists
> > and tool-makers still spend some time early on, filing metals by hand!
> > Those who haven't done some machining probably view that requirement as
> > sadistic. Actually, the difference in "feel" between, day, brass and pure
> > nickel, is important if one plans to machine them. Programming Automated
> > mills and lathes won't ever give one that feel.
> >
> > I note in many of my younger colleagues a lack of "feel" for numerical
> > quantities, for instruments, for the behavior of chemicals, and even for
> > concepts such as orbitals. I describe this to myself as the "black-box
> > syndrome". We all use black boxes. However, every time we do, we give up
> > some feel for what is going on. It may be a necessary compromise, but it
> > is a compromise. That being the case, there isn't a "best" way in every
> > case.
> >
> > Myself, I'm inclined to have students calculate, graph, etc., a few by
> > hand, then use the "automated power tools". I agree that there's much to
> > be said for giving them the power to do lots of graphs and fits.
> >
> > By the way, a pocket calculator is a black box, but so was a slide rule
> > or a log table -- most users didn't have the least idea why those tools
> > worked! The use of each, however, had its own lessons to teach on the
> > behavior of numbers. Every exercise on a slide rule reinforced what an
> > uncertainty in a result is, in a way that a calculator never does. And the
> > ratio concept is visible on a slide rule. And we all learned to estimate
> > between scale divisions -- something lots of our students can't do these
> > days. And as for log tables, how many of our students can interpolate
> > reliably?
> >
> > Is interpolating, in a table or on a scale, still a valuable skill?
> > The hand calculator allows us to require more -- every student now owns a
> > powerful numerical-analysis lab (which we grossly under-use). The tragedy
> > is that we didn't note what might be lost in the change, and make efforts
> > to pick up those skills elsewhere.
> >
> > H. Bradford Thompson [Brad]
> > Scholar in Residence, Chemistry & Physics
> > bradt@gac.edu Gustavus Adolphus College
> > Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082
> >
>
> Amen. Having been through it all from log tables to ultra-micro computers I
> heartily agree in the lack of the skills for estimation and for significance
> of numbers. I remember doing all my PhD thesis calculations on a18 place
> Marchant electronic (ie the electricity drove the gears) calculator and
> having thje first electronic calculator (a Sharp @ $600 disd +/- ?> ans *). I
> > find students today blindly record the numbers they get with no
> understanding of the magnitude or the units, something the slide rule made us
> do. (? Are bridges safer today than 30 years ago because we can get a better
> answer, or is the fuzzyness of the real world greater than the 7 decimal
> places an electronic calculator or proigram can givce us?). I feel part of
> the blame has to be in the lower level courses and in grade and high school.
> Just what are they doing today? I don't know but will find out as I have
> three kids under 6 who will start into the system. Is anyone looking at what
> is going on at that level? We all know how hard it is to change old habits
> but we need to at least start the process. Thus I agree that there needs to
> be some hand exercises in class with no electronics, eg estimation skills
> like my previous problem of what the mass of the earth would be if it were
> made of frogs. Try that one on yourself. (answer is about 10^27 grams) or
> Avagardo# of 4 lb (1.8 Kg) giant bullfrogs packeded as Escher Fraogs with a
> density of water. Do students still use the CRC Handbook, I certainly don't
> see it in my applied food science courses as I sit here to verify that the
> earth has a 4 mile radius (pg 3367 in the 40th edition). What have we been
> doing to create this situation or is it not of any consequence?
>
> But lamenting will not help, we need to do something. I feel that a major
> outcome of this conference is that not only did we look at the new
> technologies used in teaching, we began the process of examining their impact
> on the education system. Certainly there are still many good students out
> there who learn on their own despite the system. Are there enough? If we
> cater to the others what impact will it have on society, especially where #'s
> can be easily manipulated, eg Clinton's latest speech which projects new jobs
> based on irrelevant data that even his staff said was useless. Is Nintendo
> and the like making us into a society of "Visualites" who have quick resonse
> to computer generated visual data and are willing to push the death button
> based on a computers data. I have wandered and I am not a Luddite, I value
> technology and what it has done, but we in the ivory tower must instill a
> sense of feeling into the data that people use, capturing the Heisenberg
> "Uncertainty" in all our observations. If we all calculate $ to two decimals
> why not use this as a means to test the sensibility and validity of our
> estimation skills. Interestingly in the St Paul Sunday paper (7/25/93) there
> was an article on the need to get rid of the penny in our monetary system).
>
> Computers and graphics programs have made my life easier and have improved my
> research, but I learned the "hard way". Was that hard way a valuable
> experience? Do our cuurent students need that exercise? Few people can
> inherently hit like Dave Wilfield or Cal Griffy, they learned the hard way.
> Will students object to being forced to going through "Hard Way" exercises,
> how can we make them more enjoyable and educational? When do we stop or do we
> always do it, I certainly do it in my consulting on a regular basis.
>
> Estimation skills are about deciding on the guiding principles and paragigms
> and taking a first shot but doing it with some sense of reality. I recently
> sat through a meeting for the strategic planning for a university
> organization in which they used a straight line % estimate from 5 years ago
> and today to project where they would be 5 years from now. One such estimate
> was on the # of minorities that should be in the organization. Based on their
> record, very few minorities in 1987, and 2% now, they projected a minority
> level of 28% for 1997.No one questioned what the US demographics were (ie a
> projectioin to ~18%).To me that is the problem witrh people today, they take
> the easy route rather than think about why they are using the tools they need
> to use, ie lewarning the "Hard Way". Based on this conference, I feel that I
> am justified in making graduate students do hand graphs in class. I hope the
> conference organizers can take 10 or so ideas from these discussions and
> start a Listserve to continue the discussion. I certainly have benefited from
> it and well as have felt the frustration of others. Perhaps 2-3 weeks of
> discyussion on each though with several of us volunteering to coallate the
> thoughs into pros, cons and others and write it up for some publication such
> as the J Chem Education. That might help to make it a lasting and impactful
> piece. If we do that, I would ask that where appropriate, references to other
> works be detailed, for use in publication.
>
>
>

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 21:52:55 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: Understanding What One Is Doing

In message Mary Swift writes:
> My experience is much the same as Brad Thompson's. Some of the younger
> members of my department appear to have little understanding of the under-
> lying (bio)chemistry of what they are doing. Recently I proposed a new
> computer skills/concepts course for biochemistry majors and my colleagues
> were unable to understand that I wanted the students to devise the
> computation (set up the problem). I do not propose to teach kinetics or
> statistics just how to use the computer and appropriate software to solve
> a problem that the student has. My colleagues said well the computer just
> does it, right? Frankly, I didn't know how to respond civilly (probably
> the influence of one of our frequent contributors). My goal in proposing
> the course is to teach the applications/pitfalls of this powerful tool.
> the subject/problems just happen to be drawn from the life sciences. Again
> there was sort of an unexpectee
> d response from some faculty.
>
> At any rate, we have to decide to what extent we are training "blind"
> technicians or thinking/critical researchers. Once this is answered the
> question of whether a black box or understanding "it all, top to bottom"
> approach will be answered. In answering this question what is the goal
> (in the late 20th century) of undergraduate education? graduate education?
> It seems to me (on my worst days) that undergraduate education is remedial
> high school. If this trend is not broken what happens to gradur
> graduate education?
>
>
> Mary L. Swift
> Biochemistry
> Howard University
>
Mary Swift has asked and stated our greatest problem. Secondary education no
longer can do what it was supposed to do. Is it the fault of the background of
the teachers, eg few high school physics teachers ever had courses in physics
or use of computers or the fact that over 30 states now are running in the red
so sometrhing must be cut, teachers Unions are not that powerful because the
teachres like to teach, thats why they and we are here!! As a past director of
Graduate Studies in several programs and in the running to be a party time Dean
in the Graduate Scvhool at the U of Minnesota, I have great concern for our most
important resource to society, ie the graduate student. I go back to a point I
made about 2 months ago (was it that long) on this conference, ie the lack of
critical thinking skills. Craig Hassel in my dept has puyt together several very
valuable tools for faculty and students to assess their own critical thinking
skils (CHASSEL@che2.che.umn.edu). Drop him a note and I'm sure he will send it
to you. I am working with him on how to incorporate these skills as well as
quantitative thinking skills (eg estimations) into primarily biological science
courses. We lament in our NNutrition program, that biochemistry has become
molecular biology, and no one teaches the value and complexity of the metabolic
pathways anymore. When do we stop putting in the molecular level at the demise
of the whole (holistic?) level? I wish I could come up witrh an analogy from the
past to support Mary's problem with her colleagues. Santayana said that if we
forget the past we will repeat the mistakes of the past, will it be true that if
we blindly use high tech without understanding the limitations and basic
paradigms we will end up making big high tech mistakes. A rebuttal is that we
don't need to use a telephone to use it or the combustion cycle to drive a car,
I wonder if we really should and perhaps if we did we would not need to teach
the blind on the use of balck boxes. Too much good french wine on a lazy Sunday
afternoon!!!!!!!

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 21:55:16 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Re: pchem and papers 1,3,10

In message theresa Julia Zielinski writes:

>

>
> After reading these papers my opinion is that a much greater
> effort needs to be made to get the computer into the pchem
> classroom has been reinforced. Here again if the computer is
> used in class then something else must go, specifically some of
> the time that the teacher spends talking, usually too fast for
> real learning to take place. It is no wonder that students
> don't ask questions. They are overwhelmed.
>
> My proposal is to give students a reasonable list of things
> that they must do before class - read sections of the text or
> provided notes and answer a set of questions and do a set of
> problems. Hold the students accountable by administering a
> quiz at the start of class. Use class time for exploring the
> preassigned material more deeply - it is here that computers
> come in handy - and the pchem class may even need to be run in
> a computer lab at times. This approach radically changes the
> role of the professor. S/He becomes a mentor/coach who uses
> class dynamics and group dynamics to guide and implement the
> learning process. In turn the students will no longer be
> allowed to remain as passive blobs in an assigned seat. They
> must work in class in assigned groups or pairs to complete the
> activity for the day.
>
> The usual argument offered to this type of teaching is that
> there is too much content to cover in order to be able to do it
> this way. My answer is as follows. first consider what
> happens in a typical course. During lecture the valuable
> information that we are transmitting in a very polished and
> formal way usually goes in the eyes and out the pencil of the
> student without much and possible no interaction with the
> brain. The amount of learning seems to have little or no
> connection to the quality of the lecture or preparation of the
> professor. Where does the real learning occur - in the
> library, the students rooms, the night before an exam? These
> are all times when we have no access to them nor they to us.
>
> How do we induce deep learning, the kind that sets patterns for
> scholarship over a life time and creates a level of self
> confidence in the student while engaging his mind actively in
> the learning process?
>
> A tall order isn't it. Impossible - NO. Hard work for the
> instructor YES especially at first.
>
> This is where the computer fits in beautifully. Move the
> computer in pchem into the class for more than data analysis.
> Use it to display complex diagrams. Use it for exploration of
> equation properties. Use it to demonstrate reactions in
> motion, molecules in motion, and experiments. Use it for
> simulations. Get the students to see something, put it in 3D,
> rotate it look at it from all angles, turn it inside out if
> necessary, and then probe their understanding. We don't need
> to wait for them to have the math skills of the Moscow
> University students in order to give them a taste of doing and
> appreciating more complex things. And when we give them all of
> these things to do we must also give them time to reflect about
> what they are doing. If not then we will be back to us covering
> the material and them just nodding in agreement and amazement
> and feeling that they will never be able to do these things on
> their own.
>
> It will be hard work to set up all of the learning tools and
> assessment tools but if we don't start it will never get done.
>
> Final questions:
>
> 1. What specific computer exercises do the pchem teachers do in
> class as an alternative to lecturing about a topic?
>
> 2. What and how many computer illustrations/simulations do
> pchem teachers use during class?
>
> 3. How do the pchem teachers assess the effectiveness of these
> alternatives to straight lecture?
>
> 4. Other than hour exams, quizzes and homework (is it graded?)
> how do the pchem teachers assess student learning of a
> particular topic?
>
This was a great note for this conference. It emphasizes our dilema. In talking
with C. Hassel our resident Critical Thinking guru, he notes that studies show
that the best one can doo in a course is get over 12-15 major principles that
the students will learn and retain (they forget 85% of the memory and
regurgitation stuff). The computer should be used to help enhace the learning of
these principles, thus the skills on using the computer really should come at an
earlier stage. As knowledge iuncreases exponentially, we have to "dare" to lave
stuff out, but what? What will our colleagues think? I think a lot of that can
go is stuff that is repetitive, we give into the complex that we each know the
material best so we start from scratch such as teaching spreadsheet use at the
senior level and the students are smart, they say thay haven't had it before.
What we need to do is coordinate our courses, we are doing this in our own
program (food science) now but not with the chemistry, physics and calculus
instructors so it is half hearted at a major university. Perhaps it would work
in smaller institutions.

As to interactive teaching in the classroom, it is a scary business because we
are not all sure that it will work in the long run,m eg the grade/high school
debacle on group theory for math. I believe that students lack group skills, a
desirable and required skill at the industrial level, but they are taught to
compete for grades (if we scale a course so there are always 10% A's etc) we
encoursge them not to work together. I applaud Zielinski for trying these new
concepts out, but what do we do in a larger class. I added in such practices in
a 50-60 student Introductory class and had to drop 40% of the material, it still
bugs me today, but "I think" the class is better. I have not received any
significant diffreneces in the course evaluations however! When we key tring to
innovate there is no baseline for comparison. As I said in a recent speech on
teaching quantitative skills, we need to dare to leave something out, don't try
to jam everything in and we need to rethink the course each time we teach it.

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 23:33:31 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Brad Thompson writes:

> John Woolcock, with his "Sig.Fig.Button" suggestion, has provided a
> fine example of the danger of black boxes. We could, indeed, encase
> within a (physical) black box, the calculator, another (conceptual)
> black box, the ridiculous text sig.fig. rules. Lots of users would
> use the results blindly. Others, seeing or sensing the absurdity of
> the answers, would blame numerical calculators as a class.

> There's no "right" number of digits for a number, except (sometimes)
> in a specific context. The text rules obscure this fact, and the
> Sig.Fig.Button would hide it entirely.

I did not take the "Sig.Fig.Button" to mean the calculator would apply
the rough rules for significant figures which generated so much heat
recently on the CHEMED-L listserv. I think what was implied that the
calculator might carry (in HP RPN fashion) two stacks, a numerical stack
containing the numbers to be processed, and an error stack containing the
errors in the numbers to be processed. The functions (addition, subtraction
multiplication, division, logs, exponentials, etc.) would calculate the
numerical result on the one stack, and the resulting error on the other stack.
By doing these calculations in parallel, one could get the correct (eg.
applied error propagation) error in the result which is only approximated by
the rough significant figure rules. Such a process would not generate the
anomalies discussed on the CHEMED-L listserv.

Personally, I have no problem with the ROUGH rules, and clearly explain to
students that they are only rough approximations. I think students can see
that there is not a significant difference between 99 +/-1 and 101 +/- 1
although the rough rules specify the former as two and the latter as three
significant figures. For analytical chemistry students, texts such as Skoog,
West, and Holler present error propagation in the statistics chapter.

As has been discussed earlier, it is not necessary to load the first year
chemistry student with every bit of complexity. The example given earlier,
I believe, was chemical equilibrium. While the general chemistry student is
given a concentration dependent approach, the analytical student is exposed to
the effects of activities. There are problems with ignoring activities, but
these need not be faced until the student moves beyond general chemistry.

___________________________________________________________
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:38:37 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: Papers 1 and 9 - Discussion -

Tom O'Haver writes

> employers, and society as best they can. Don Rosental
> focuses on the needs of CHEMISTS, and I agree; it is our first
> responsibility to train future chemists. His list is
> probably very reasonable for the BS level chemist. Some may
> wish to do a bit more; perhaps some a bit less. But
> learning does not stop, one hopes, with a BS in chemistry.

Yes our responsibility is to train chemists but there is a broader
responsibility - to educate a scientifically literate population.
If we don't do that we will be talking to ourselves. We are surely
outnumbered by the non chemists who view us as odd types.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:47:48 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation

> the student previous experience (apply the New tools)? If
> the Neurolgical model is correct, it would appear very
> difficult to provide today's students with "intuition,
> insight or critical thinking skills using "the old tools".
>
> George Long

This nails the concept. We the experienced educators must
design the tools and the uses of modern technology to
train and educate students who are as different from us as we
are different from our parents.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 02:05:53 EDT
From: Jim Holler
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods
In-Reply-To: Message of Sun,
25 Jul 1993 15:12:42 -0600 from

We tried computer applications in the 5th edition of Analytical Chemistry:
An Introduction (Skoog, et al., 1990). They were universally regarded as
disposable by reviewers. Should we put them back in?

On Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:12:42 -0600 Gerald Morine said:
>There have been lists by Don Rosenthal and Tom O'Haver of the items about
>computers that all students should know. There is the question of how and
>when the students should know these things. Right now, we cover computer
>interfacing, computer control, and databases (as specific topics of study)
>in Instrumental Analaysis, in the 4th year. I assume everyone agrees this
>is too late.
>
>It would be easy to say that computers should be part of all courses, and
>we do use instructional software in an increasing number, but most of my
>colleagues are busy with chemistry and don't want to divert any time for
>formal instruction in RAM/ROM and the Internet.
>
>Isn't the place for formal instuction in the topic "Chemistry and
>Computers" in the first analytical lecture course? We use "Quantitative
>Chemical Analysis," by Daniel Harris. It is an excellent analytical text, IMHO.
>The only mention of computers, however, is in one footnote.
>
>If computer topics are going to be introduced into the chemistry curriculum
>early on, and at all institutions, it has to be included in commercial
>instructional material. This might be through an INEXPENSIVE paperback
>supplement initially, and later by inclusion, I think, in analytical textbooks.
>
>Gerald Morine, Chemistry Dept., Bemidji State University
>ghmo@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu

Jim Holler Phone: 606-257-5884
Department of Chemistry FAX: 606-258-1069
University of Kentucky Email: HOLLER@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Lexington, KY 40506
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 04:37:17 -0500
Reply-To: Ted Labuza
From: Ted Labuza
Subject: Reality of numbers

In message Brad Thompson writes:
> > A thought on whether students should do the "fundamental operations"
> > -- graphing, doing least squares operations, titration, or even
> > multiplication/division -- should be done a few times at the fundamental
> > level before students are given the black boxes:
> >
> > I understand that students in the German programs to produce machinists
> > and tool-makers still spend some time early on, filing metals by hand!
> > Those who haven't done some machining probably view that requirement as
> > sadistic. Actually, the difference in "feel" between, day, brass and pure
> > nickel, is important if one plans to machine them. Programming Automated
> > mills and lathes won't ever give one that feel.
> >
> > I note in many of my younger colleagues a lack of "feel" for numerical
> > quantities, for instruments, for the behavior of chemicals, and even for
> > concepts such as orbitals. I describe this to myself as the "black-box
> > syndrome". We all use black boxes. However, every time we do, we give up
> > some feel for what is going on. It may be a necessary compromise, but it
> > is a compromise. That being the case, there isn't a "best" way in every
> > case.
> >
> > Myself, I'm inclined to have students calculate, graph, etc., a few by
> > hand, then use the "automated power tools". I agree that there's much to
> > be said for giving them the power to do lots of graphs and fits.
> >
> > By the way, a pocket calculator is a black box, but so was a slide rule
> > or a log table -- most users didn't have the least idea why those tools
> > worked! The use of each, however, had its own lessons to teach on the
> > behavior of numbers. Every exercise on a slide rule reinforced what an
> > uncertainty in a result is, in a way that a calculator never does. And the
> > ratio concept is visible on a slide rule. And we all learned to estimate
> > between scale divisions -- something lots of our students can't do these
> > days. And as for log tables, how many of our students can interpolate
> > reliably?
> >
> > Is interpolating, in a table or on a scale, still a valuable skill?
> > The hand calculator allows us to require more -- every student now owns a
> > powerful numerical-analysis lab (which we grossly under-use). The tragedy
> > is that we didn't note what might be lost in the change, and make efforts
> > to pick up those skills elsewhere.
> >
> > H. Bradford Thompson [Brad]
> > Scholar in Residence, Chemistry & Physics
> > bradt@gac.edu Gustavus Adolphus College
> > Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082
> >
>
>
Amen. Having been through it all from log tables to ultra-micro computers I
> heartily agree in the lack of the skills for estimation and for significance
> of numbers. I remember doing all my PhD thesis calculations on an18 place
> Marchant electronic (ie the electricity drove the gears) calculator and
> having thje first electronic calculator (a Sharp @ $600 did +/- div and *). I
> > find students today blindly record the numbers they get with no
> understanding of the magnitude or the units, something the slide rule made us
> do. (? Are bridges safer today than 30 years ago because we can get a better
> answer, or is the fuzzyness of the real world greater than the 7 decimal
> places an electronic calculator or program can give us?). I feel part of
> the blame has to be in the lower level courses and in grade and high school.
> Just what are they doing today? I don't know but will find out as I have
> three kids under 6 who will start into the system. Is anyone looking at what
> is going on at that level? We all know how hard it is to change old habits
> but we need to at least start the process. Thus I agree that there needs to
> be some hand exercises in class with no electronics, eg estimation skills
> like my previous problem of what the mass of the earth would be if it were
> made of frogs. Try that one on yourself. (answer is about 10^27 grams) or
> Avagardo# of 4 lb (1.8 Kg) giant bullfrogs packeded as Escher Frogs with a
> density of water. Do students still use the CRC Handbook, I certainly don't
> see it in my applied food science courses as I sit here to verify that the
> earth has a 4 mile radius (pg 3367 in the 40th edition). What have we been
> doing to create this situation or is it not of any consequence?
>
> But lamenting will not help, we need to do something. I feel that a major
> outcome of this conference is that not only did we look at the new
> technologies used in teaching, we began the process of examining their impact
> on the education system. Certainly there are still many good students out
> there who learn on their own despite the system. Are there enough? If we
> cater to the others what impact will it have on society, especially where #'s
> can be easily manipulated, eg Clinton's latest speech which projects new jobs
> based on irrelevant data that even his staff said was useless. Is Nintendo
> and the like making us into a society of "Visualites" who have quick resonse
> to computer generated visual data (Virtual Reality) and are willing to push
the death button
> based on a computers data. I have wandered and I am not a Luddite, I value
> technology and what it has done, but we in the ivory tower must instill a
> sense of feeling into the data that people use, capturing the Heisenberg
> "Uncertainty" in all our observations. If we all calculate $ to two decimals
> why not use this as a means to test the sensibility and validity of our
> estimation skills. Interestingly in the St Paul Sunday paper (7/25/93) there
> was an article on the need to get rid of the penny in our monetary system).
>
> Computers and graphics programs have made my life easier and have improved my
> research, but I learned the "hard way". Was that hard way a valuable
> experience? Do our cuurent students need that exercise? Few people can
> inherently hit like Dave Wilfield or Cal Griffy, they learned the hard way.
> Will students object to being forced to going through "Hard Way" exercises,
> how can we make them more enjoyable and educational? When do we stop or do we
> always do it, I certainly do it in my consulting on a regular basis.
>
> Estimation skills are about deciding on the guiding principles and paragigms
> and taking a first shot but doing it with some sense of reality. I recently
> sat through a meeting for the strategic planning for a university
> organization in which they used a straight line % estimate from 5 years ago
> and today to project where they would be 5 years from now without taking into
consideration the world of reality.To me that is the problem with
people today is that they take
> the easy route rather than think about why they are using the tools they need
> to use, ie lewarning the "Hard Way". Based on this conference, I feel that I
> am justified in making graduate students do hand graphs in class. I hope the
> conference organizers can take 10 or so ideas from these discussions and
> start a Listserve to continue the discussion. I certainly have benefited from
> it and well as have felt the frustration of others. Perhaps 2-3 weeks of
> discussion on each though with several of us volunteering to coallate the
> thoughs into pros, cons and others and write it up for some publication such
> as the J Chem Education. That might help to make it a lasting and impactful
> piece. If we do that, I would ask that where appropriate, references to other
> works be detailed, for use in publication.

Dr Ted Labuza
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 136 ABLMS
University of Minnesota
St. Paul MN 55108
Voice 612-624-9701 or Home 612-633-8928
Fax 612-625-5272 or Home Fax 612-633-0627

There is no such thing as a poverty of time, rather there is a poverty of being
able to say "NO".

=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 08:29:00 EDT
From: "Peter Gold, Penn State U. (814) 865-7694"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation
In-Reply-To: ASMITH AT DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU -- Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:38:25 EDT

The "significant figures" calculator button already exists in a sense in a
more sophisticated and useful form. We have a ten-year-old Hewlett Packard
8450 UV-VIS spectrophotometer in our p. chem lab. It is controlled by a
keypad-operated microprocessor, which includes a calculator mode. It can
be used to do computations in the ordinary way but numbers can also be
entered with their uncertainties and the uncertainties are propagated through
the calculation to give the answer with its correct uncertainty. I've
never seen a calculator with this feature, however.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 09:13:00 EST
From: "DR. LISA KINTNER CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, UPJ,
JOHNSTOWN PA"
Subject: Paper 11 Questions

Questions for Carl H. Snyder, Paper 11
"Applications of Networked Computers and Electronic Mail in a Chemistry
Course for nonScience Students"
1. Was the question of security brought up with respect to students
having access to the Department LAN? If so, how did you resolve the
situation?

2. I presume that similar menu progrmas could be used in a Windows
or Mac environment.

Lisa Kintner
Department of Chemistry
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Johnstown PA
KINTNER@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 10:13:21 -0400
From: HARRY PENCE
Subject: New Tools vs. Old Methods

I'm a little surprised that Tom Labuza has had so much trouble using
coperative learning in his large lectures. I use lecture partners in a lecture
section of 80 to 100, and it works great. The students love it, and the only
problem I've encountered is that my students keep pestering other instructors
to ask why they don't do something similar. At first, I covered less material,
but as I've learned how to use the techniques, I would guess that I cover about
10-20% less material. I'd be very interested in how the Labusa's class is set
up.
Sorry if this response is inappropriate since I'm past the weekend,
but my e-mail has been out for the past several weeks, and I'm so happy to be
back on line that my enthusiasm overwhelmed my sense of propriety.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Harry E. Pence BITNET: PENCEHE@SNYONEVA |
| Professor of Chemistry PHONE: 607-436-3179 |
| SUNY Oneonta FAX: 607-436-2107 |
| Oneonta, NY 13820 |
____________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 11:09:45 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: New Tools vs. Old Methods

I guess that Harry Pence was a bit fast on the draw/ keyboard.

It is not unusual for traditional teachers to find the potential
energy barrier to using groups in class a bit high. It is also normal
for us to question ourselves and ask if we are doing the right thing.
The techniques are so different from what most of us experienced as
students. and Some places have many faculty who are very negative about
any classroom innovation. It would be better if we remembered our
goal - to produce thinking adult scientists and non scientists.
Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead. Lets teach less
and have learning happen more.

> problem I've encountered is that my students keep pestering other instructors
> to ask why they don't do something similar.

I've heard this happen to others too.

> At first, I covered less material, but as I've learned how
> to use the techniques, I would guess that I cover about
> 10-20% less material.

Yes, to cover less is also normal from what I've heard at meetings.
but see

Skewered on the Unicorn's Horn: The Illusion of Tragic Tradeoff
Between Content and Critical Thinking
by Craig Nelson in

Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Sciences
ed by Linda Crow

Published by the Society of College Science Teachers
1989

from Dr. Nelson's essay:

"The steps that facilitate critical thinking also facilitate content
aquisition. ....A higher proportion of the class now masters difficult
content. Further much of the content will be retained as examples of
critical thinking processes. Thus, the tradeoffs between the teaching
of processes and the teaching of content that once seemed so evident are,
in practice, as imaginary as unicorn horns."

I want to emphasize once again. We must assess the learning more frequently
and not only by exams. How do we know that they have 'gotten it'?
When we "cover material" we've 'gotten it' but do they.
Can they even envision themselves as 'getting it' on their own?

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 10:36:53 -0500
From: david brooks
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods -- A General Observation
In-Reply-To: <01H0ZT06SQUY001DHT@crcvms.unl.edu> from "George Long" at Jul 25,
93 05:15:07 pm

Thank you, George Long, for:

> If
> the Neurolgical model is correct, it would appear very
> difficult to provide today's students with "intuition,
> insight or critical thinking skills using "the old tools".
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 12:12:45 -0400
From: "James E. Van Verth"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

This has been a very interesting discussion. Sorry for the late
contribution, but my mainframe connection was down yesterday, and I am just
catching up. I'll make this a short as possible.

We have all worried about this. But how many of us, in our education,
have used "black boxes" before we really understood how they worked. ALL
of us, I would guess. In the course of using them (or perhaps not until
we had to teach others about them) we have gained a more detailed
understanding.

We sometime forget that the course we are teaching is not the end of a
student's education. Nor is the sum total of all the courses taught for the
undergraduate (or graduate) degree. A number of messages to
CHEMCONF and CHEMED-L have included the comment that "most of the chemistry
I know was learned after graduate school." Not an uncommon observation,
and I would guess that in that body of knowledge is usually some very
fundamental stuff that "should" have been learned in general chemistry.

James E. Van Verth Department of Chemistry
VANVERTH@CANISIUS.BITNET Canisius College, Buffalo, NY 14208
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 12:17:04 EDT
From: "C. H. Lochmuller"
Subject: Re: New Tools vs. Old Methods
In-Reply-To: <9307261546.AA00402@umd5.umd.edu>; from "theresa Julia Zielinski"
at Jul 26, 93 11:09 am

Theresa Zielinski is quite correct in her concerns {IMNSHO}. I introduced in
class computation with graphical display in 1976 here with special caution
to achieve "computer enhanced learning/understanding" and to avoid "computer
obstucted learning" - the alternative. The organic people thought it was a
silly move at the time. They now do full-screen projection of the results of
Allinger-type calculations using real-time manipulation and assign homework
on our cluster devoted to that use by undergrads.

Progress? Perhaps but it took 16 years and the changepver of half the
faculty in that area.

As for "Teach less and learn more" that's a fine idea except just as one
cannot begin real interdisciplinary work before mastering at least one
discipline, one needs to give students the tools to understand what might be
learned? I get students at this place who all graduated above the top 5% of
the nation, who arrived in a class with median combined SAT's of 1300+ and
who do not know what an electronic excited state is as seniors! Why? Because
we spend a great deal of time worrying that they will experience "discovery"
before they can use a compass. { The Mr. Roger's approach to lab: Take
solution marked A pour some in container. Take solution B and pour some in
as well. Did anything happen? Can you spell 'precipitate'?}. Have they had
the words electronic transition state pass through their brains to their
note-taking pen before I see them - yes. Do they understand? Not really.

If "teach less - learn more" means develop the beginning of a chemical
intuition as a process in the major courses - then yes. If it means learn
what is on the exam I cooked up ten years ago and have once again changed
not the problems but the numbers - then no.

CHL
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 12:13:06 -0600
From: "David A. Boyles"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

We might do well to remember that the "factor label method" is one of
the most rudimentary--and yet utilitarian--black boxes used in
general chemistry. In a very real way it completely short-circuits
an intuitive feel for problem solving, something which can only develop
over time upon repeated application.

I played Clementi in fifth grade, but I don't play him now like I did
then...now, with more "feel" and "understanding."

David A. Boyles
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
Rapid City, SD 57701
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:28:04 MST
From: Elizabeth Dorland
Subject: Re: new vs. old methods

James E. Van Verth wrote:

>We sometime forget that the course we are teaching is not the end of
>a student's education. Nor is the sum total of all the courses
>taught for the undergraduate (or graduate) degree. A number of
>messages to CHEMCONF and CHEMED-L have included the comment that
>"most of the chemistry I know was learned after graduate school."
>Not an uncommon observation, and I would guess that in that body of
>knowledge is usually some very fundamental stuff that "should" have
>been learned in general chemistry.

I've often thought about this. There are many concepts from freshman
chemistry which I only really understood after I started teaching.
And I was an "A" student, as were probably most of you. Does this
mean that I was not well taught? Or is it simply normal and necessary
to be exposed to the material in several courses over a period of
time in order to absorb it? Remembering my experience, I certainly
try to bring the concepts back into discussion multiple times during
the semester, but I don't know if I am doing things "better" than
they were done to me and whether more learning is the result. I
didn't feel deprived at the time.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 17:36:19 -0500
From: "Alfred J. Lata"
Subject: The new Chemistry 'Wonder Machine'

Dear Colleagues:
There has been a lot of talk about how we will and should use computers
in our courses. But we will probably find more an immediate impact on
our courses with the new graphic hand-held calculators that our Math
colleagues are, and/or will be, using in calc classes.
For the price of a 'couple' of text books (and to ensure 'passing'
Chemistry) students can a Sparcom Pac for the graphic programmable HP's:

'General Chemistry Applications Pac ($90) over 150 equations from kinetics,
acids/bases, gases, precipitation and more. Plot pH titration curves and
radial functions. Periodic Table includes 14 properties of each element.
A chemical equation writer that calculates theoretical yields, limiting
reagents, and checks balance. Molecular weight calculator.'

and

'Chem Reference Library ($90) over 3000 entries in eleven subject areas;
elements, solids, liquids, gases, acids/bases, thermodynamics, complexes,
solubilities, electrochemistry, water and bonds.'

This is not an advertisement, but for your information: this is what is
available at your bookstore. A lot of instructors are going to have to
make the investment to see what the students have available!!!

These 'machines' will change what and how we teach!! What will we expect
students to know, and be able to do, to be Chemically knowledeable??

Alfred J. Lata
lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 20:17:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 11 - Some Short Questions

Paper 11 - Short Questions for Carl H. Snyder

"Applications of Networked Computers and Electronic Mail in a Chemistry
Course for Non-Science Students"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. From the Syllabus (PAPER11SYL.TXT) I gather that this scheme was used
in the second half of a two semester sequence. Was course evaluation
done both semesters? Were there any differences in course evaluations
or specific comments which might provide some indication of the
success of your scheme?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. In section 4.1 you mention "Review Questions" using Diploma IV.
a. Can you show us a set of questions with comments for one chapter?
b. Can you tell us a little more about Diploma IV? What unique
features does the package have which made you decide to use it
rather than a simple word processor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Am I correct in assuming that each dialog in PAPER11HWK.TXT was
between A student and you? Would there be some advantage to
making this dialog available to ALL students (protecting the
anonymity of the student)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of
your scheme
a. from the perspective of the student?
b. from the perspective of the instructor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Are there any plans to use this scheme with chemistry majors?
If so in which course or courses? If not, why not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Rosenthal
Department of Chemistry
Clarkson University
ROSEN@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 21:40:14 -0500
From: Barry Rowe
Subject: Re: new vs. old methods

>I've often thought about this. There are many concepts from freshman
>chemistry which I only really understood after I started teaching.

How true! I think an awful lot of learning is 'readiness'. I think most
18 & 19 year olds are not 'ready' in maturity, experience, or mathematical
understanding to do much more than memorize algorithms and facts in
beginning Chemistry. They are simply not ready to progress to the
synthesis necessary to get 'the big picture'.

They are learning about life -- often their first real experience away from
home and on their own. They can set their own hours, their own study
times, and their own habits. They choose their own friends and their own
relationships. They are learning all of this, and there is a lot of 'lab
work' involved.

I know I was certainly not a very good student, but have improved an
enormous amount since I don't want to look like a fool in front of 130
students each day! And somehow, all of that stuff I learned during the
late 60's seems so easy now -- and it fits together so well!!

barry
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
[] [] []
Barry E. Rowe browe@ncsa.uiuc.edu NCSA ChemViz group
240 CAB, 152 E. Springfield Ave. Champaign, IL 61820
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 21:46:54 CDT
From: Brad Thompson
Subject: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Allan Smith writes, re: the Sig.Fig.Button:

> The programming should not be difficult:
> look at the numbers entered by the user, determine their number of
> sig. fig.s, then apply the rules we argued interminably about several weeks
> ago. Once there is agreement on a set of rules, the algorithm can't be
> far down the road. I'd pay a bit more for software or a calculator which
> did sig figs correctly, since this is the kind of activity computers
> SHOULD do.

"Once there is agreement ... ." Ah, there's the rub. Should we
propagate the uncertainty from just one datum? Is so, which, and how
is the calculator to choose? If not, should we assume the data are
independent? If not, do we make the worst-case assumption? If not,
do we require that the user provide the covariance? Want more? I've
got lots more!

"Sig Figs" are a crude, simple approximation for a complex subject --
propagation of numerical uncertainties. Building some necessarily
oversimplified method into a calculator would further enshrine bad
methods. Black boxes are a necessary evil. I know we've got to use
them -- no one can build everything from scratch. But we ought to do
our best to (1) understand their limits, and (2) insist on precise
'specs on what the boxes do. And we ought to encourage our students
to do likewise, if what we're doing is really education.

I've got lots of practical experience with the sig-fig uncertainty
propagation business. In our individualized-data-homework-supervisor
program we built in an option that follows the propagation by
re-doing the calculation, assuming a change of one in the least digit
of each datum in turn. This is, indeed, "the kind of activity
computers SHOULD do." By the way, the programming *is* difficult --
or at least tricky! But the most discouraging thing I learned from
doing this is that otherwise sophisticated colleagues simply would
not believe the results, until challenged to test the propagation
themselves! The freshman s.f. rules "black box" dominates the
thinking of even some university professors! Of course, it's had
a long time to work its evil.

H. Bradford Thompson [Brad]
Scholar in Residence, Chemistry & Physics
bradt@gac.edu Gustavus Adolphus College
Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:45:13 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: New Tools vs. Old Methods

>From: "C. H. Lochmuller"

>As for "Teach less and learn more" that's a fine idea except
>just as one cannot begin real interdisciplinary work before
>mastering at least one>discipline, one needs to give students
>the tools to understand what might be learned?

Question: when in a student's career is he considered to have
mastered a discipline?

One possible answer

>>We sometime forget that the course we are teaching is not the
>>end of a student's education. Nor is the sum total of all the
>>courses taught for the undergraduate (or graduate) degree. A
>>number of messages to CHEMCONF and CHEMED-L have included the
>>comment that "most of the chemistry I know was learned after
>>graduate school." Not an uncommon observation, and I would
>>guess that in that body of knowledge is usually some very
>>fundamental stuff that "should" have been learned in general
>>chemistry.

>>James E. Van Verth Department of Chemistry

>From CHL again

>I get students at this place who all graduated above the top
>5% of the nation, who arrived in a class with median combined
>SAT's of 1300+ and who do not know what an electronic excited
>state is as seniors! Why? Because we spend a great deal of
>time worrying that they will experience "discovery" before
>they can use a compass. { The Mr. Roger's approach to lab:
>Take solution marked A pour some in container. Take solution B
>and pour some in as well. Did anything happen? Can you spell
>'precipitate'?}.

It seems that the discovery method of doing chemistry is being
misapplied or misunderstood. As you know one of the purposes
of the discovery the approach is to get students to honestly
report their observations. Too often students want to know
what the right answer is without just looking at a solution and
reporting what they see. They look at a test tube with a bunch
of white stuff at the bottom of a supernatant liquid layer and
they ask "is this a precipitate?" My God!, they don't believe
their eyes. They will show you something yellow and ask, "is
this yellow?" This happened in general chem when I taught
labs. It happened year after year. I'm sure it still happens.
I've been told that this inability to think for ones self with
respect to observation starts in grade school. They are
programmed to accept the teachers statement as true. They need
only to find out if they are right. -- Classic Dualist
behavior. Beautiful but sad examples of noncritical thinking.

>Have they had the words electronic transition state pass
>through their brains to their note-taking pen before I see
>them - yes. Do they understand? Not really.

They may not admit that they know what you mean when you ask
about an excited state or they truly do not know. They are
waiting for the message from on high as to what to believe and
how to believe. Furthermore they are trained passive absorbers
and algorithm consumers. What happened to all the students
Charlie? When we were in school we would watch the teacher and
just wait for him (they were all men then) to slip and then we
would pounce. We kept track of every minus sign as it
appeared. How come most cubs today don't pounce?

I have a hypothesis about the problem. It puts the
responsibility for this problem on the current paradigm of
education with its predominant lecture format that promotes
passivity in students. Co-responsibility falls on the culture
of learning which says it is OK to study mostly the night
before and exam. Additional co-responsibility lies with the
nature of our electronic mass culture.

I can't change society but I can change my classroom. Pchem is
not a spectator sport any more.

>If "teach less - learn more" means develop the beginning of a
>chemical intuition as a process in the major courses - then
>yes.

"teach less - learn more" means to stop covering an enormous
amount of material shallowly. Choose fewer topics and explore
them deeply. In the process design the learning situation so
that the skills required by a scientist to learn independently
are fostered and nurtured. These same skills will making those
skipped shallow treatments accessible to the student latter
when the need arises. It means making conections across courses
while developing a topic - a wholistic approach but still
within the confines of each discipline - making connections.
It means making the student more responsible for the material
in the class - letting them explain topics, setting up
interesting problems for them to do - providing them with the
tools to solve those problems - providing them with more what
ifs.

>If it means learn what is on the exam I cooked up ten years
>ago and have once again changed not the problems but the
>numbers - then no.

I agree. This might be a good way to test basic skills but not
the way to test critical thinking. Now lets turn this around.
How about giving them the question and a solution with errors
on the exam and let them figure out what is wrong? How about
giving them the question and answer and have them explain the
logic and chemical principles for each step? How about giving
them data and a conclusion and then asking them to use the data
to justify the conclusion or if they don't agree to form a new
conclusion. You have probably thought of all of these and then
some. I'm sure that we could come up with quite a list of
possibilities that would challenge the students. But first we
must adjust our teaching to reflect this new style. Our fine
exams would be an abysmal failure if students were required to
do this type of thinking after a semester of just sitting back
and diligently taking notes.

One of the important keys to successful implimentation of
crital thinking in courses is to match challenge with support.
Sort of like grants but every one gets something.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:59:14 -0400
From: theresa Julia Zielinski
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: new vs. old methods

> From: Barry Rowe
>
> >I've often thought about this. There are many concepts from freshman
> >chemistry which I only really understood after I started teaching.
>
> How true! I think an awful lot of learning is 'readiness'. I think most
> 18 & 19 year olds are not 'ready' in maturity, experience, or mathematical
> understanding to do much more than memorize algorithms and facts in
> beginning Chemistry. They are simply not ready to progress to the
> synthesis necessary to get 'the big picture'.
>
> They are learning about life -- often their first real experience away from
> home and on their own. They can set their own hours, their own study
> times, and their own habits. They choose their own friends and their own
> relationships. They are learning all of this, and there is a lot of 'lab
> work' involved.

The problem is more serious than this. The extensive reliance on algorithms
extends over the entire undergraduate years. It is the resistance to movement
away from algorithms in even older students that concerns those studying
critical thinking in students.

Students will rise to meet the expectations we set. If we set algorithms
as our expectations, algorithms is what we will get.

Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University
Roszieli@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Chemistry Department
Niagara University NY 14109

=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 08:30:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 12 - Short Questions

Paper 12 - Short Questions

THE COMPUTER CO-OP: TEACHING ORGANIC CHEMISTRY ON A CONFERENCE IN AN
INTERDISCIPLINARY MACINTOSH LAB
by Carolyn S. Judd and Robert G. Ford

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In section 2.2 you state:
> . . . students . . met . . once a week for a 3-hour lecture in the
> computer co-op/lab

In section 2.3 you state:
> The class consisted, generally, of three activities:
> an electronic conference . . over the material assigned
> a group activity . . involving the study of mechanisms
> guided examination . . of the experiments.

a. I assume the "lecture" actually consisted of these three
activities.
Is that correct?

b. Did you consider two 1.5 hour sessions or three 1 hour sessions?
Don't students get tired in such a long session?

c. Were students expected to read an assignment prior to class?
Did they read or review the assignment after class?
Do you have any information on how they allocated out-of-class
time to this course?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. > PacerForum . . supports graphics and sound as well as text.
> . . They would . . scroll through the opening messages
> from the instructor . . (section 3.4.1)
> When they entered the classroom, students were presented with a
> short summary of the material assigned for the day (prepared in
> advance) . . (section 3.4.2)

a. Were the opening messages oral (in sound) or in text?

b. How was sound used - by the students? - by the instructor?
How much time was devoted to PacerForum sound each week?

c. Was the short summary supplied as hard copy or via PacerForum?

d. Does PacerForum make the handling of graphics easy?
How much graphics did you create for this course?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. (Section 3.4.3)
> Each student would be given a slightly different response,
> based on the response he or she had provided.
> During the course of the class session, the teacher would send
> responses; all would see these as they were posted.

With sixteen students wasn't this rather confusing?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. (Section 3.4.5)
I am not an organic chemist and I probably saw an early version of
Beaker. I agree that it is a remarkable program. However, the
version that I saw didn't always give the correct answer. (For
example - pKs).

Is this still true?
Doesn't this cause a problem?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. (Section 6.6)
a. Was or will this course be taken by chemistry majors?

b. > How much material can be cut from a course without discrediting
> the course?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

6. a. Computers can assist in helping to provide a better understanding
of the three dimensional character of molecules. Have you
considered using molecular modelling software in the course?

b. Have you considered using computer simulation of qual organic
software like MacSQUALOR or MacQual?

c. Have you considered using Stan Smith's organic chemistry software?

d. Have you considered using Andrew Montana's award winning software
involving organic reaction mechanisms?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Rosenthal
Department of Chemistry
Clarkson University
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 07:55:48 -0600
From: Barry Rowe
Subject: Re: new vs. old methods

>Students will rise to meet the expectations we set. If we set algorithms
>as our expectations, algorithms is what we will get.

Very good point! But are we driven by what and how we think learning
should be, or what the 'next level' in their learning process expects?

I teach high school. I don't think that I am driven by AP exam scores, nor
by college entrance expectations, but I would be embarrassed (and probably
teaching remedial, beginning, general Science in middle school) if my
students always did poorly on college entrance and exams. Yet the drive to
teach appropriately is often controlled by what the next level in their
education expects. Too often, the college level at least seems to expect
algorithms and facts.

barry
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 10:01:54 -0400
From: binw@CHEMISTRY.UMASS.EDU
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

PLEASE SIGN ME OFF, MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN JAMMED.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 10:50:23 EDT
From: "C. H. Lochmuller"
Subject: Re: New Tools vs. Old Methods
In-Reply-To: <9307270454.AA05598@umd5.umd.edu>; from "theresa Julia Zielinski"
at Jul 27, 93 12:45 am

Theresa Zielinski asked what my impression is of when a student has mastered
enough to be interdisciplinary:

My point is that the desire to have students be "rounded" can degenerate
into fooling them into believeing that they are ready to do anything in
anyone's field after 9 survey courses. It doesn't work that way. Nor is the
interdisciplinary research model that goes " I met Theresa in the faculty
commons today and discovered she needs a computer program to display
molecules in 3D. Take a copy of that APPLE application we have to her" nine
months later ...." AAAh. It's time for the annual report to the Dean on
activities. .....Interdisciplinary Scholarly work? Hmmm. Oh, yea! Thresa
Zielinski and I are doing work on 3D modeling!" See?

On the other hand, I was a BS Chem and BS Math major. Chemistry all the way
to the doctorate. A casual conversation three years ago with a Chem. E.
studying the use of bacteria at high temperature { <100 C} revealed they
were having survival problems. I asked what the media was and was told Tris
at pH 7.4. Thinking about the one semester course I had using Ricci's book
on pH, I asked what reference they were using at 120C. He said that they
adjusted the pH at ambient. I said but Tris has a large enthalpy of
ionization and dpH/dT is substantial. Yea, his bugs were being killed in a
wrong pH broth by the time he raised the temp 100C. On the other hand, that
in part lead to a 27 claim patent using dPH/dT deliberately for me and in an
engineering application! I guess that is closerr to interdisciplinary
research { NSF funded it!}. I mastered chemistry first.

Enough ego stuff. Real point is that good students can and will learn what
is not lectured about if we leave them with a view into the real complexity
or real chemical systems and treat frictionless pistons, electrons in square
wells, the hydrogen atom, "activity or fugacity coeff=1" in their minds as
simplifying assumptions made to lead them to the real work of discovery and
not what "most people do"? Sort of like knit one-pearl one as in intro to
making scarves and sweaters? {weird Duke Prof says!}

C. H. Lochmueller
Duke University
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 14:53:16 EDT
From: "Frank M. Lanzafame"
Subject: Re: New Tools Vs. Old Methods

Jim Holler writes:

> We tried computer applications in the 5th edition of Analytical
> Chemistry: An Introduction (Skoog, et al., 1990). They were
> universally regarded as disposable by reviewers. Should we put them
> back in?

Not having seen the text, it is hard to say. We have used
"Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry" (Skoog, et al. 3rd through 6th
ed.) and haven't paid much attention to the "Introduction.." What was
the general nature of the computer applications?

Jim Holler quotes Gerald Morine:

>> If computer topics are going to be introduced into the chemistry
>> curriculum early on, and at all institutions, it has to be included
>> in commercial instructional material. This might be through an
>> INEXPENSIVE paperback supplement initially, and later by inclusion,
>> I think, in analytical textbooks.

The last time I taught our Analytical Course, I had a great time
exploring MATHCAD and demonstrating for students some of the
capabilities on general solutions to polyprotic titration curves, and
EDTA titration curves. It was my first experience with MATHCAD, so I
didn't get much opportunity to integrate it into the course. It is
fascinating how a tool like MATHCAD can change the way you approach and
think about some of the more classic equilibrium problems.

We noted the publisher's announcement of a MATHCAD supplement to Holler
et al. and have eagerly awaited it since. What is the status of the
supplement?

-----------------------------------------------------------
| Frank M. Lanzafame Department of Chemistry |
| Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Rd. |
| Rochester, NY 14623 (716) 292-2000 Ext. 5130 |
| Internet: flanzafame@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:43:00 EST
From: "Arthur M. Halpern"
Subject: ruminations on teaching pchem

Professor Zielinski makes several interesting and, I think, valid
points about educational methodologies related to physical chemistry. I
have 'taught' that subject for more than a dozen years now and believe that,
especially regarding thermodynamics, one never learn_s_ thermo, but one is
always learn_ing_ it. Thus a main objective is to reassure students that
they are not alone if they feel that even getting a foothold is very hard.
I want to introduce them to the beauty and rigor of thermo so that the next
time they encounter it or need it in some other context they will feel
comfortable about 'picking up' the thread; they will have the background and
confidence needed, I hope, to continue the learn_ing_.
I also suspect that the traditional lectures, with chalk boards
chocked full of nice mathematical expressions and crude pictures, are not
very effective to even those who take notes. So what I have been trying for
the past several years is to use the case study approach. I discuss solving
pchem problems from the point of view of focusing on strategy, much in the
same way our colleagues in business (or law) use the case study method. I
ask the students to 'help' me attack the problem by rounding up the 'usual
suspects' and by eliminating some (conceptual and mathematical
possibilities) and identifying others. I try to draw as many students into
this group activity as possible. Maybe, just maybe, some of the thinking
process becomes revealed to them, not just the mechanical one (what formula
do I use?).
I strongly advocate using computer-assisted methods of data
acquisition _and_ analysis in the pchem lab (even possibly earlier in the
curriculum), but I try very hard to avoid (or minimize) the black box
syndrome especially in the former. I am pleasantly suprised by the
enthusiasm and ease with which (most) students take to the use of RS/1,
which is a very powerful statistical scientific spreadsheet. They respond
so well, I think, because they find it compelling. It is truly a liberating
experience. It allows them to get deeper into the data and the meaning of
the analyzed results. I like the way in which such applications encourage
the students to consider the "how do we know" issues that implicitly
underlie our knowledge and treatment of literature information as well as
the lecture concepts that are, after all, based on our experience of
measurement and results.
I am familiar with P.W. Atkins's Library of Physical Chemistry
Software, which was published several years ago. In my experience, students
did not take full advantage of that tutorial utility, perhaps such a package
with a more contemporary interface and with revised examples, etc., might be
more effective now. Does anyone know of such material, e.g., for Windows?

Arthur M. Halpern
Department of Chemistry
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 10:36:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 13 - Short Questions

PAPER 13 - Short Questions

Finite Difference Solution of the Diffusion Equation on a Spreadsheet

Douglas A. Coe, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology,
Butte, MT 59701 DACOE%MTVMS2.MTECH.EDU

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. a. What sort of undergraduate Physical Chemistry course do you teach?

b. Do you teach physical chemistry to engineering as well as chemistry
majors?

c. Is diffusion and the diffusion equation normally covered in your
course?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2.> The calculations were done on a 486 microcomputer with a math co-
> processor using Borland's Quattro Pro 123 spreadsheet (version 4.0).

a. To what sort of computing facilities do the students have access?
How many students do you have?
Are they all familiar with Quattro Pro 123?

b. Is the development and use of the program assigned as a regular
class assignment? What text do you use and where in the text
is diffusion considered?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. You ask some good questions.
I'd be interested in your answers to these questions.

> QUESTIONS:

> 1. Are these sort of exercises of any pedagogical value?

> 2. What is the difference between what the student learns if they
> have to construct the spreadsheet versus being given a working
> spreadsheet of this model?

> 3. Does the typical undergraduate chemistry student have enough
> knowledge of spreadsheets to build this model. Is this class or
> institution dependent? Is exposure to second order partial
> differential equations a prerequisite?

> 4. What is the relative educational value of exposing students to (1)
> the diffusion equation, (2) numerical solutions of differential
> equations, (3) an advanced spreadsheet exercise?

> 5. Some effort is required by the student to construct the
> spreadsheet described in this paper. Is exposing students to
> numerical solutions of the diffusion equation on a spreadsheet
> worth the effort?

Donald Rosenthal
Department of Chemistry
Clarkson University
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 10:06:54 MDT
From: Reed Howald
Subject: paper13 short questions

Can we get the figures into INDEX CHEMCONF

I realize that it works better to use anonymous FTP to transfer the GIF files,
but most of us now have UUDECODE and we need to use it enough to get rid of all
the bugs. I would like to get and view your figures this way.

While I am sending, I will add another short question. A second derivative is
curvature. With your initial conditions the values are always increasing and
the curvature is positive everywhere. How hard would it be to set up different
initial conditions to get both increasing and decreasing regions?

Sincerely
Reed Howald
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:11:00 EST
From: "Arthur M. Halpern"
Subject: Paper 13 Question

How 'portable' is the exercise to other physical systems or examples?
That is, are students given several diffusion coefficients that apply to
different situations, or do (can) they calculate D to suit a particular system?

Arthur M. Halpern
Department of Chemistry
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, Indiana

=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 10:39:09 -0400
From: JOHN WOOLCOCK
Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Subject: Short Questions - Paper 14

Short Questions and Comments for Paper 14:

1. To make the simulation seem more realistic did you consider having the
students record in lab notebooks the steps they used to run the program through
the various experiments, spectra and data analysis? This would help the those
students that are not strong visual learners.

2. I found that when I used the program for the first time and tried to run a
spectrum first, I got a system error (#25) and the application quit. If I went
back and ran an experiment first and it plotted a graph for one run, I could
then do all the spectra I wanted. Then, when I quit the application and came
back I could then run a spectrum first. Why? Is the preference file in the
System Folder being created only when an experiment is run?

3. Why can't (or didn't you want) the spectra to be saved by the students?

4. It would be helpful if the program had a more detailed explanation screen
that would briefly review the features of the program described in Appendix 1.
This could also be expanded to include hints on what to do in the exercise and
create a "guided inquiry" rather than "open inquiry" exercise out of it which
may be less frustrating for the students the first time they work through it.

5. I have also been able to use JCE: Software's "Grafit" to plot the data from
saved files. It is substantially cheaper than the commercial graphing packages
but has fewer bells and whistles. Grafit's import feature always expects
delimited text files to have column headings. It therefore puts the first row
of data into the column headings which are not plotted. Since in Chemulate this
point is (0, 0) this is not a big problem, except when you need to get initial
rates.

6. For me an experiment simulation is in all senses of the phrase: "the next
best thing". They are better than nothing at all and work best as an
introduction to a real experiment. Students should be forced to make their own
solutions, handle troublesome equipment, etc. Making an experiment too
idealized will not do this. I would most likely use Chemulate as an in-class
activity as you have described or a pre or post lab assignment. With some fine
tuning it would even be worth distributing Chemulate commercially or through
JCE:
Software. Particularly if the method that allows instructors to set up new
exercises is not too difficult.

John C. Woolcock
Chemistry Department
Indiana University of PA
Indiana, PA 15705
Internet: WOOLCOCK@grove.iup.edu
Bitnet: WOOLCOCK@IUP
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 10:59:00 EDT
From: Donald Rosenthal
Subject: Paper 14 - Short Questions

Paper 14 - Short Questions
Chemulate! A Simulator of UV/Visible Kinetics Experiments for the
Macintosh by Richard S. Moog

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Chemulate would appear to be an interesting and useful application of
the computer in helping to teach kinetics. Unfortunately, I do not
have ready access to the Macintosh hardware. For this reason it is
difficult to visualize exactly what your program is like. In your
paper (Section II-B) you state:

> Their assignment was to determine which of three possible mechanisms
> could apply to their system (that is, determine the rate law and
> which of the three mechanisms could provide that law), and to
> determine the Arrhenius constant and the activation energy for the
> constant k.

a. I wonder if you can provide an ASCII file containing a specific
example, i.e. identify the reaction and list three mechanisms.

b. Were the students expected to deduce the rate expression for each
of the mechanisms? The examples you cited in Appendix 2-B are
rather complex, paricularly for an undergraduate just beginning to
study kinetics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. In the oxidation of ethanol example (Appendix 2-B) you indicate the
rate depends upon the concentrations of HCrO4-, H+ and EtOH. HCrO4-
is in equilibrium with CrO4= and Cr2O7=. Do the students consider
these equilibria?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. In the reduction of hexacyano iron(III) by ascorbic acid (Appendix
2-B) there are three rate constants (as you indicate). Were the
students expected to determine the Arrhenius parameters and
activation energies for each rate constant?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. In Section 2-F you mention the determination of the initial rate of
reaction from the initial slope. How accurate were the rate
constants, and energies of activation which the students obtained
from the data?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Generally, a suitable plot of the integrated form of the rate
equation provides more accurate rate constants than do initial
rates. Did students use integrated forms of the rate equation? For
example, the rate of oxidation of ethanol is pseudo first order in
ethanol under appropriate conditions (and pseudo second order in
HCrO4- under other conditions).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Rosenthal
Department of Chemistry
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
ROSEN1@CLVM.BITNET

=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 12:11:00 EST
From: "DR. LISA KINTNER CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, UPJ,
JOHNSTOWN PA"
Subject: Methods of Learning -- General Discussion

The discussion under the heading of "New Tools Vs Old Methods" has
generated a lot of very provocative discussion. I for one have found
myself thinking a lot about my own experiences as a freshman and
sophomore chem major at a large university and trying to relate
them once again to those of my own students, most of whom are bio
majors headed for careers in the health professions (at a small
branch campus). The same questions keep coming back: 1) what are
my goals? 2) what should students "learn" in general chemistry? 3)
How can I help them on the path to becoming "thinking scientists and
non-scientists"? Theresa Zielinski (Roszieli@uvbvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
has given us some interesting insight -- and a few good references.
>How come most cubs today don't pounce?
>
>I have a hypothesis about the problem. It puts the
>responsibility for this problem on the current paradigm of
>education with its predominant lecture format that promotes
>passivity in students. Co-responsibility falls on the culture
>of learning which says it is OK to study mostly the night
>before and exam. Additional co-responsibility lies with the
>nature of our electronic mass culture.

Barry Rowe (browe@ncsa.uiuc.edu) made some helpful observations
about "most 18- and 19-year-olds."
> They are learning about life -- often their first real experience
>away from home and on their own. They can set their own hours,
>their own study times, and their own habits. They choose their own
>friends and their own relationships. They are learning all of this,
>and there is a lot of 'lab work' involved.

To which Theresa replied:
>The problem is more serious than this. The extensive reliance on
>algorithms extends over the entire undergraduate years. It is the
>resistance to movement away from algorithms in even older
>students that concerns those studying critical thinking in students.

And in return, Barry commented:
>>Students will rise to meet the expectations we set. If we set
>>algorithms as our expectations, algorithms is what we will get.

>Very good point! But are we driven by what and how we think
>learning should be, or what the 'next level' in their learning process
>expects?
>
>I teach high school. I don't think that I am driven by AP exam
>scores, nor by college entrance expectations, but I would be
>embarrassed (and probably teaching remedial, beginning, general
>Science in middle school) if my students always did poorly on
>college entrance and exams. Yet the drive to teach appropriately is
>often controlled by what the next level in their education expects.
>Too often, the college level at least seems to expect algorithms and
>facts.

I've been a passive "lurker" through most of the conference. Now I
feel compelled to add my own two-bits.

Thanks Barry for reminding us that at age 18 and 19 our students are
perhaps just "learning about life". Maybe that explains in part why I
feel that they want just the answer, the RIGHT answer and on a
silver platter. However, I distinctly remember my high school AP US
History teacher who insisted that we look for much more than JUST
THE ANSWER. Her goal was to make us think like historians. Non of
us liked the hard work; but she had a point and I tell my general
chemistry students about her when they come to my office
wondering why they didn't do any better when they had studied so
hard for the exam. I think that I only had 2 or 3 professors in
college who insisted that we think like scientists (and that was only
in my junior and senior year!). I think that it's crucial that we
consider the emotional and intellectual development of our students
when we set our goals; however, this is an explanation, not an
excuse. I hope that this on-going discussion has pointed out that
many of us (even those of us who teach general chemistry) expect
algorithms and facts. How do we get that message out? My greatest
challenge is to overcome the students expectation that I will always
give them the RIGHT answer!

Lisa Kintner
Department of Chemistry
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Johnstown, PA
KINTNER@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 12:13:00 EST
From: "DR. LISA KINTNER CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, UPJ,
JOHNSTOWN PA"
Subject: New Tools Vs Old Methods -- More Discussion

As I read through last weekend's discussion under the thread "New
Tools Vs. Old Methods", I found myself drifting in a surprising
direction. Harry Pence commented that
>current students are much more experienced in obtaining knowledge
>by visual means than in any other way. This is their preferred
>method of learning. . . .we should use visualization much more in
>our courses. . . .we should focus more on teaching students how to
>observe, that is, help them to sharpen the skills they already have.
>. . .we can't give up on reading and listening, but we must
>understand that we're fighting an uphill battle, and special efforts
>and techniques will be necessary.

I found my thoughts shifting from my chemistry students to my
13-year-old son who thinks he want to be an architect. Like many
13-year-olds, he watches MTV, plays video games and uses my
computer to write his research papers. He reads books because he
"has" to. If he could choose his reading material he'd pick Sports
Illustrated and Modern Drummer and adventure/sci fi. Several weeks
ago we spent the day riding roller coasters at an amusement park in
Pittsburgh. Now he wants to learn all that he can about roller
coasters; he wants to design the ultimate one himself. Roller
coasters may be just another passing fancy but the current interest
has provided a valuable learning experience -- on many levels. We
spent an afternoon on campus at the library using the on-line
catalogue and CD ROM data base. He found several books and a few
magazine/journal articles. The next step: "play" with the CAD
programs in the Engineering and Design labs to amplify his design
(he's already been using templates and graph paper). He has caught
on to modern technology with lightning speed.

Shifting back to general chemistry . . .wonder if I could refine
this experiential "model" and apply it to the general chemistry labs
or a multidisciplinary advanced synthesis and structure lab? The
idea is neither new, nor unique; conference participants have
reported models that are further along in development. Focussing
briefly on my own child and the world in which he lives really
brought home the strong visual and technical (high tech) orientation
of my/our students.

Lisa Kintner
Department of Chemistry
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Johnstown, PA
KINTNER@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU