How many times have you heard questions such as this raised by students, by faculty, by colleagues, by administra- tors?

Few of today's teachers have been involved in decisions about whether or not laboratorv courses will be taught. His-

What's the Point of Laboratory Instruction? instructional settings, laboratory work can serve as a vehicle for developing prohlem-solving skills. That such skills are perceived to be important is illustrated bv the ooinions of faculty, chemistry baccalaureate degree holders, and tradi- tional employers of chemists. Problem-solvine skills are first

torical precedent and their own training establish ;state of mind and an attitude of acceptance of the proposition that laboratory instruction is an integral part of kducation in the sciences, yet faculty often consider responsibility for lahora- tory instruction an onerous assignment, prohably because, even a t the most modest level, success in laboratory instruc- tion depends on management skills. Most faculty are not, by temperament or training, comfortable in a managerial role. As the number of students in a laboratory course increases, it becomes more obvious that "success" in a course is achieved through other people, e.g., assistants who are actually in contact with the students, store-room personnel, and, in ex- treme cases of verv laree laboratorv courses. other facultv. Assistants may bededicated and wiling to wbrk hard a t the problems of teachina, but thev are often immature and lacking in necessary skills; their turn-over rate is often high because they are students themselves.

~dminis t ra tors frequently perceive the enormous effort that goes into laboratory instruction as wasted. From their viewpoint, laboratory courses consume resources-teachers, assistants, specially designed spaces, vast quantities of supplies, etc.-with no apparent useful benefits. Since many faculty are loath to teach laboratories and students often find them meaningless, it is not surprising to find that adminis- trators would be among the first to eliminate such "non pro- ductive and ex~ensive enterurises" were it not for their tra- ditional role in'science education. Students would probably he the second rank of those who would eliminate laboratorv instrucriuni. T h e ~ r c(,mplaint.; range from thc trivial-"l;111 courses really take a lot id time for the credit" and '.they often wreck a good schedulew-to those that are apparently in- sightful-"you beat your way through this thing without understanding the slightest bit of what you're doing". . ."you do exactly what you've been told just to get a set of results and get the work done."

What really is the point of laboratory instruction? Students aenerallv perceive a lack of direction ?'I don't know what to . . do") or t,ryanizntion ("you do the experimmt~ hrt'ore rhry talk about the iuhiect in 1rct1lrr"J: iarulrsofren trcat Iaboratorv instruction asanother vehicle for delivering information; a n i administrators, who are under pressure to become more cost effective, see the elimination of laboratory courses as an ob- vious route for freeing needed resources. I t is disturbina that so many persuns occupyit~y such 11 spectrum ~t'legirimate in- terests ; ; h#dd have .;wh negative feelinas about lnhuratur\~ work in view of the practicalnature of chkmistry. The sit& tion is more worrisome because surveys indicate that the av- erage persun sees the henetits uf chemistry in applin~tims and techndugy. A l t h ~ g h it does not necessarily du st, in most

on the listofskills perceived to be important 6 r the students and employers and second on the list for the facultv. However. little evidence that much formal training in probiem-solving is incorporated in the average undergraduate chemistry cur- riculum. Laboratory courses would seem ideal candidates for vehicles by which to develop problem-solving skills, and elimination, or a t least the continued misuse of laboratory courses, would narrow the opportunities for developing such skills in the eyes of some observers.

The point of all chemistry courses should be to enable stu- dents to learn their chemistry by doing it. A certain amount of information about chemistry can be transmitted by lectures, but "doing" chemistry can only be accomplished through laboratory work. Most persons who have thought deeply about the nature of laboratorv instruction would aeree that the laboratory experience is not appropriate to illustrate the material in lecture courses. The major part of scientific theory is based on a number of interlocking experiments which are difficult to illustrate in one or two afternoons of work.

An important part of doing chemistry involves confronta- tion of the unknown. Successful interactions of this tvpe in- corporate clearly defined questions that can be answerid by careful experimentation. The fact that careful experimenta- tion may-require reasonable mastery of rather standard techniques should not be an excuse to make such mastery the objective of a laboratory course. Focusing entirely on tech- niques and exercises in manipulation may make it easier to evaluate student efforts. but it does little to enhance uroh- lem-solving skills. ~an ipu la t ive skills are important ohy if they are adjuncts to scientific inquiry-confrontation of the unknown. Students tend to he uncomfortable with the real- ization that decisions concerning unknown situations often must be made using data that are not as clear-cut as those typically used in textbooks and lecture-oriented material. They find it difficult to deal with the fact that such ambiguity often arises from their own deficiencies and that ultimate underitanding cmws through their cupilcity to deal with their own deiicienc~es. Teachers may find it dill~cult to face and solve the prohlems of assessing the quality with which stn- dents have confronted the unknown. Add to this the problems associated with creating, oraanizina. and administering a laboratory course containing the essential elements of "do& chemistrv", and it is not sur~r is ina that manv teacbina laho- ratory courses have been reduced% a series-of "cook-hook" exercises.

Surely we can make a better effort than we generally do now at transmitting to our students the very essence of our science, the way we progress in it by the skill we share in confronting the unknown.

Volume 59 Number 7 July 1982 537