A Plan for Establishing and Maintaining the High School-College Communication Pipeline Donald B. Phillips Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197

This article describes the origin and evolution of a series of conferences on the teaching of high school chemistry hosted by the Eastern Michigan University Department of Chemis- try. The first conference was held in May of 1976. I t came about hecause our college chemistry faculty felt out of touch with the area high school chemistry teachers and with the high school course.

A committee consisting of four area high school teachers and two EMU chemistry faculty organized the initial con- ference and also served as the nucleus of the presenters for the oroeram. A tentative. oartial nroeram accomoanied hv a call . ., . . . .. for additional papers to round out the program was mailed to schnols within a 60-mile radius of EMU. This has been the general procedure for all of our conferences.

One major ohjective of the first meeting was to determine whether the idea of a small, drive-in conference dealing with the teachinr of hieh school chemistrv was viahle. Content of the originaj meeting was designed to explore the high school-college interface and to clarify our mutual expectations. This meeting drew a modest attendance of 52 high school and college chemistry teachers. Since then, new wrinkles have heen added every year and attendance has grown to over 200, nearly all from within a 60-mile radius of EMU.

Evaluation of the first conference was done by question- naire. Results indicated that we were on target hoth as to the perceived need for a local chemistry education conference and as to the proper content of the program. The evaluation forms also allowed participants to point out strengths and weak- nesses of our first effort and to suggest topics and speakers for the next conference. Except for general agreement that we had not allowed enough time for discussion hetween talks, com- ments were otherwise very positive and encouraging. The sessir~ns on lahoratory safety and classroom demonstrations were considered so important that they have heen made reg- ular features of every conference.

Following the suggestions from the previous year, talks of the second conference were centered on the theme of the budget and how to cut costs in the chemistry course. Sessions, some of which were held concurrently, included how to share equipment with other science courses, the use of disposable plastic syringes, and how to construct some chemistry equipment and instrumentation. Separate sessions also were provided for visiting students to conduct experiments under the direction of our EMU chemistry faculty, giving the stu- dents a chance to use some of the instrumentation not usually available a t the high school level. Inviting the students gave us an onoortunitv to showcase our facultv and facilities. Some . . of the activities that have been done include the determination of the diameter of an atom by X-ray diffraction, infrared and visible spectroscopy, gas chromatography, gel filtration, flame photometry, and the use of computers in chemistry. The concurrent sessions for students have served not only to in- troduce students to colleae-level instrumentation. hut also to acquaint them with f a ~ k . ~ who may eventually he their teachers.

Once again written evaluations indicated that we had se- lected a timely theme, that we had a good variety of program material in addition to stressing the cost aspect of teaching chemistry, and that the laboratory experiences that we had

provided for the students were ofa challenging, yet reasonahle level of difficulty. Evaluations also revealed that attendees did not favor having omcurrent sessions for faculty. In many cases the attendees were forced to make a choice between two sessions, hoth of which they wanted to attend.

After two meetings, we realized that annual meetings would soon exhaust t,he supply of local high school teachers willing to give talks, so t.he third conference was held two years later. We now plan to host our meetings every other year. We have also discontinued having concurrent sessions for faculty.

The theme of the third a~nference, based on suggestions from the previous meeting, wa? teaching strategies. Talks were given on the use nf computers for instruction, teaching with the use of analogies and models, and an introduction to Pi- aget's ideas on learning. High school students also were invited 11) present science fair or science cluh projects. Two groups of s t~~den t s respmded. One group descrihed the benefits to them of science cluh act,ivities and science fair projects. The second group nutlined a project they had worked on involving the extensive use of spectrophotometry.

Partly as an experiment, it was decided to hold the fourth meeting in t,he fall. All other features continued as before. Attendance reached 215, with 150 of these heing high school students. The quadrupling of student attendance when the conference was switched from spring to fall seems to indicate that fall is the preferred time for them. This certainly makes sense for college-bound seniors who may still he deciding upon a school to attend. However, we have had several high school sophnmores and juniors attend. There also is a potentially great,er recruiting pay-off for the college if the meeting is held in the fall. Although a survey of faculty revealed no preference fc~r a spring or fall meeting, those favoring an early fall meeting noted that ideas that piqued one's interest could he tried out nn students immediately hefore enthusiasm was lost.

The theme of the fourth cnnference was the professional aspects of heing a high school chemistry teacher. For the first time we hrought in speakers from outside the immediate area. Ms. Sylvia Ware of t,he ACS Office of High School Chemistry spoke on the renewed efforts of the ACS directed a t the high school teacher. Professor A. M. (Mickey) Sarquis of Miami University-Middletown, Ohio, Editor of the JOURNAL% Secnndary School Chemistry Section descrihed what the J O l m N A I . could do for the teacher and what the teacher could do for the .JOIJRNAI.. The enthusiastic response of the audi- enre in asking questions and in consuming a large amount of handout materials clearly indicated that the presentations were well received.

Feedhack from participating teachers and students, how- ever, revealed one prohlem that we had not anticipated. Many students had found some of the lahoratnry activities to he too advanced for them. This came as somewhat of a surprise be- cause the same activities had been considered very appro- priate in other years. Part of the prohlem was caused by the large number of student,^ that had attended. Not every stu- dent got his or her first two choices of experiments. Some ended up doing activities which they were not particularly interested in or qualified to do. We also realized that a fall meeting presents special prohlems for first-year high schod chemistry st,udents. Many of them had taken less than three

632 Journal of Chemical Education

months of chemistry and were not as well prepared as were the students in the previous years when the meeting was held in the spring. I t was suggested that in the future we indicate a difficulty level for each activity so that students may select suitable experiments based on their backgrounds.

In addition to the specific program changes that have been noted while describing the evolution of our conferences, we have the following more general comments and suggestions to make. The content of each program should he balanced hetween presentations from the high school and college levels. (There are too many college teachers all too willing to tell high school teachers how to teach.) If capable, willing high school students can be found, incorporate them into the program.

Emphasize local aspects and problems whenever possible. High-powered recommendations that cannot he implemented in the typical school are usually not well received. A survey of our attendees showed that they did not particularly feel that we had to have a big-name chemical educator to highlight the program. Several expressed concern that such a person would not talk about practical matters.

Sessions on laboratory safety and classroom demonstrations have been so popular that they are almost obligatory. We have used high school teachers, our own safety courdinator, local industry safety coordinators, and American Red Cross vol- unteers to talk on laboratory safety and first aid. Each safety speaker has brought a different viewpoint to the subject and as a result the audience prospective has been broadened. Our own Chemistry Club has developed a Chemical Magic Show

and has found the show to be instructive to put together, fun to present, and a rallying point for them.

The positive aspects of hosting a drive-in conference have heen many. The main objective we had of improving com- munication certainly has been met. There are advantages to small, local conferences. Unlike at the college level, active participation in major chemistry education meetings is not essentially mandatory for the high school teacher. Further- more, some teachers may feel more comfortable talking to a medium-size group of peers in one's own "backyard" than in larger, more prestigeous, hut more threatening environments. We have had several speakers who have done top-notch jobs in presenting very valuahle information to the conference, but who probably would not he willing to participate in other types of meetings.

On the other hand, we also have found an abundance of nationally known chemistry educators within a short distance of EMU. Thus, the need to travel 500 or 1000 miles to hear these same speakers is circumvented.

Costs of hosting a conference of this type do not have to be prohibitive. A college admissions office may be willing to underwrite part of the expenses, especially if high school students are involved. Organizations such as the ACS may he able to provide a speaker andlor handout materials. Our ACS Local Section also provided a small grant to fund our last conference. Travel expenses for local speakers should be minimal because of their close proximity.

Volume 58 Number 8 August 1981 633