6. Do your students have to do experiments to gather data for everything they study?
Not at all. We are not averse to borrowing evidence so long as our students use it for their own analysis. Ionization potentials, covalent and ionic radii, and mass spectral cracking patterns provide our students with the means of developing a pretty nice model of the atom and of bonding. Per cent composition and stoichiometry are self-discovered almost without teacher intervention, save an occasional perplexed question from the teacher. Students discover the law of large numbers prior to a study of equilibrium and use it in a penny-flipping experiment to discover Le Chatelier's Principle even in Le Chatelier's absence.
7. Would you say then that the primary difference between the Wilton High Chemistry program and many others is the emphasis on research?
Yes, that and our emphasis on ambiguity and uncertainty, travelling more than arriving, process before content, interdisciplinary education, translation, and cooperative learning.
8. Why do you find de-emphasizing final outcomes so successful?
Science is defined, I believe, by its processes. Answers are just the current models most of which will likely be revised or completely scrapped, probably soon, or so the history of science would suggest. If students have the models and not the processes upon which they are based, they will be like butlers in 21st century England. If, on the other hand, they master the intellectual processes by which the models were arrived; logical problem solving techniques, control of variables, etc., then they will have learned what is science about the models and will be prepared to use science in their lives. It's nice that protein synthesis is described much like IBM runs its business. Let's not expect that this explanation will last much longer.
While scientific models come and go, scientific methods remain quite static. Of course instrumentation changes and so the methods will appear to change. But the underlying principles, which is what I define science to be, have not changed in hundreds of years. Science affords the student the skills to become a critical thinker, so vital in our society as a defense against quackery.
9. Then you don't believe it's appropriate to teach models?
There is of course much of value in studying the models. But the models should be studied in history and English and art as well as in science. The models are for every subject to use and enjoy. But the methods are the inner workings of science.
It is also true that we find that when students are thrust into the middle of the subject matter and are responsible for the reasoning used, the subject of chemistry is naturally interesting to many more students. In the same sense, students in a music theory course are moved by actually playing the works of Mozart. The most common comment about the program from past students is that it really teaches students how to think. Actually, it probably doesn't, but it does allow and encourage students to think and communicate. Mostly, it helps students focus on meaningful questions; questions which, when answered, are likely to lead to useful conclusions.
10. Have you any other recommendations for teachers who would like to build a chemistry program similar to yours?
I should caution that this program is not well suited towards preparing students for the SAT II's in chemistry. We give extensive out of class help for this purpose and allow interested juniors the opportunity to bypass physics and go directly to A.P. chemistry with the option to take either physics or A.P. physics in the senior year.
I also believe that this course requires an unusual attitude among the staff. I have tried to capture that attitude in: "The Student Is Always Right or a Religion of Teaching Chemistry." Teachers who have gone into this program with traditional attitudes of right and wrong have experienced difficulties.
