REYNALDO R. IBASCO EDSC 301 DR.

AMY PUNZALAN
1978-05372

CRITIQUE PAPER OF THE ARTICLE, “You Can’t Get There from Here”
AUTHOR: A.H. Johnstone
JOURNAL: Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 87, No. 1, January 2010

Introduction and Brief summary

The article points out that the chemistry topics students found difficult about 40
years ago are still very much the same topics students struggle with presently. The author
says what may be the problem is the lack of understanding of how students learn.
Information or concepts are introduced too early, inappropriate to the students’ stage of
learning. Information is also clustered in indigestible bundles. Furthermore concepts are
not linked to the reality of students’ lives. The net effect of these is information overload.
The article presents an information processing model based on Ausubelian and Piagetian
theories to help explain the difficulty of the students. The author uses this model as a
basis for some practical approaches and revisions to address the problem without diluting
or minimizing the wonder and challenge of studying chemistry as a discipline.

Critique Proper

The setting of the context of the article was very catchy and at the same time
sobering. As a science educator I find it disturbing that the problem 40 years ago still
exists today. I agree with the article pretty much on these but there should have been
mention of actual current studies and sources that show that the same problems still exist
today. While the author’s observations about the impact of recent projects and initiatives
such as ChemCom and Salter’s Chemistry are well-taken, they are a bit narrow; perhaps
even misleading. The focus of many of these projects was to make chemistry more
relevant to students’ lives, show how studying chemistry can impact society and prepare
students not necessarily to be scientists but more to be citizen’s of an increasingly
technological society. They were not necessarily designed (although they help) to
address the difficulties of students with certain chemistry topics. Therefore, to mean that
these projects “do not seem to have significantly stemmed the drift of disaffected students
out of chemistry” may be a bit overboard.

The Information Processing Model presented by the author is simple and easy to
understand. It definitely was able to simplify the many complex information processing
models found in literature. However, there is always the risk of oversimplification. The
brain function is much more complicated than any model can possibly demonstrate. The
author should have put this forward to remind the readers lest readers [teachers] acquire a
simplistic or distorted view of how students learn.

I find the explanation of the working space (working memory) very enlightening.
It is sufficient to rationalize the information overload students experience as they study
chemistry A teacher who reads this will understand easily and clearly what may happen
when we give students too much information without giving them time to process or
digest the chunks of information. However, although the article provides some
explanation as to the nature of the working space, the author could have clarified further
some aspects. First, is the working space or memory the same as or equivalent to the
short term memory that most know about? This question becomes rather obvious with
the use of long term memory in the model. If they are the same or equivalent, there might
be some confusion because the common notion about short term memory is that it is
simply a storage thing. The working memory described in the article is more than just a
storage thing. Second, what are some other factors that may affect or influence the
processing aspect of the working memory? Age was mentioned as one factor that
influences the working space. The mention of a study correlating age with working space
and the ability to sustain a chain of reasoning with multiple steps was really helpful in
showing this. Third, it is mentioned that working memory expands and reaches a
maximum about the age of 16 and remains fixed thereafter. Why it stops expanding and
what this really implies were not so clearly discussed in the article. This part should
really be of importance to educators as they seek to understand how students are thinking
and how they might make adjustments in the classroom.

The author suggested four main ways to make changes in view of what the
information processing model shows: (1) remove some chemistry content from the high
school curriculum, (2) reduce some topics, (3) reschedule some topics, and (4) change the
starting points and emphasis in teaching chemistry. Taken in a general sense, these
changes are common curricular changes. Viewed this way, the author’s proposals can
easily be accommodated. Besides, they make sense because they are supported by the
model. The issue of information overload, readiness of students to learn certain concepts
and making lessons relevant to students are adequately addressed by these proposed
changes. Starting perhaps the course with organic chemistry, teaching the mole concept
macroscopically first (visually, that is), or doing away some complex calculations when
teaching the concept of equilibrium thus seem reasonable. However, these changes may
still fall short. Early in the article the author pointed out that the problem in teaching is
“information cannot be transferred intact from a teacher to a learner” which is a
constructivist point of view. From this viewpoint, the proposed changes may not be
enough. The learning environment needs to be adjusted, too (e.g. from teacher-centered
to student-centered or lecture-based to activity-based). The teacher’s perspective needs to
follow suit also from that of objectivism epistemology to constructivism epistemology if
these proposed changes were to work. The author did mention the need to reexamine as
well the presentation and methodology of teaching chemistry but it is presented in a very
protracted and of secondary nature in importance.

The article cited some very specific proposals. The idea of starting a high school
chemistry course with organic chemistry has some merits. There are many aspects of
organic chemistry that students encounter in real life therefore makes it very relevant to
the students. However, this assumption may still need to be weighed carefully. The
everyday experience which relates to organic chemistry may vary for students and the
teacher may end up talking about stuff that may still not connect with students’ lives.
 Teaching the mole concept macroscopically, postponing or doing away with the
calculations (e.g. mole calculations, quantitative analysis, equilibrium calculations),
doing away with some topics such as phase rule, closed system thermodynamics, Carnot
cycles, colligative properties, and wave mechanics seem reasonable especially in light of
the desire to start where students are (prior learning, schema, what is already in their long
term memory, closer to their real-life experience). I agree with the author in that teaching
this way avoids overloading the working memory. However, one needs to be aware of
and consider also the SLR’s, benchmarks, scope and sequence and expected
competencies. The challenge therefore is to effect curricular changes without dropping
the standards, diluting chemistry or creating conceptual gaps. Quantitative approach or
calculations is really alright as long as problems are phrased so that students exercise
higher thinking.

The result of a survey among graduate about the usefulness of the chemistry
courses they took, in relation to their chemistry workplace, is very interesting. It is also
very helpful in providing insight to what topics are needed to prepare students for their
future career. However, there is a need to expand this study to reflect the general
population. The need for process skills is obvious from the results of the study as stated
by the author. However, it is not automatically true that there is less need for specific
chemical skills and hence a good reason to reduce these. It is possible that some of the
specific skills may not be frequently used and yet these are the very critical skills needed
in many industries. Not being used frequently or required to be used does not necessarily
mean these specific skills are not important.

Over-al, the article is very informative, especially the part about the information
processing model. The title and the introduction were very catchy (traveler by the
roadside and then the monkey illustration) and the presentation engaging enough. The
part though about the triangle representing the aspects of physical sciences seems trivial
and unnecessary. The reader would have understood easily and clearly the point about
information overload and the number of information units when a teacher discusses a
particular chemistry concept even without the triangle model. The closing and action
point at the end were very clearly spelled out for researchers, educators and other
concerned parties to think about and take appropriate next steps. The article is an eye-
opener to reexamine indeed what are being taught, how these are being taught and even
why these are being taught. It challenges some of the current “sacred” thinking about
teaching chemistry, the “that is how things are suppose to be done here” mentality.
Perhaps, the author is right: “We can’t get there from here”!

Implication to Teaching and the Philippine Setting

1. Curriculum planners and designers need to evaluate and reexamine what are being
taught, how these are being taught and even why these are being taught.
2. Science teachers must also be always be aware of how they view how students learn,
how they view science and how it should be taught. These affect greatly what and how
they teach and eventually impacts how students will learn and view science.

3. Teachers need to be familiar with and conscious of the information processing model.
It is a great tool to help teachers design strategies and methods to teach science
effectively.

4. Many science teachers are textbook dependent, their style of teaching is still lecture-
based. In this light it will be a radical shift to adapt the proposed changes. As mentioned
above, perhaps the greater challenge is for teachers to change their personal epistemology
of science and teaching.

5. It is easier said than done. Curriculum changes are not easy to implement. There is the
question of how much freedom the classroom teacher has. There needs to be a concerted
effort from the grassroots all the way to the national level education officials.

6. There might be a need to develop curriculum materials or textbooks that reflect the
proposed curriculum changes.

7. Retraining teachers may need to be done so they can implement the proposed
curricular changes.