Waves of publishers reps, with regional sales managers in tow, have washed up on my office doorstep in the last ten days. With the current textbook edition cycle being about three years it seems that we are always reviewing texts. Other than the time cost, I don't mind this.
I have a collection of organic texts that goes back to the 1870s. I even have the original hand written 1878 class notes of a UC Berkeley student. From this perspective, the teaching of organic really has not changed that much except for the gradual introduction of spectroscopy and physical organic and mechanism into the subject. In many respects the vast majority of textbooks are still teaching the modern equivalent of Type Theory.
For those who don't know, from the late 1820's there was the Theory of Radicals in which there were fragments which were interchangeable on a center. This is where the use of R to represent some undefined carbon chain comes from. Type Theory developed in the late 1840s and early 1850s and followed the Theory of Radicals. I think it was Gerhardt who pushed the idea of Type Theory starting with the Water Type. Alcohols and Ethers are water types, in which the hydrogens are replaced by "radicals"(R groups). Hoffmann later developed the Ammonia Type to discuss what we know as amines.
Anyway, to ask the question that was on mind when I began, if you could start from scratch in creating an organic textbook, how would you organize it? Don't worry about the marketplace. I want to know what your perfect text organization would look like. I don't care about the format of being an e-book or distribution on rolls of toilet paper, it's the content that I am asking about. Textbook price does not matter for this discussion, so please let's not go there.
My mechanism bias comes out in my thoughts about this. After the basics of what organic molecules are, I would start with physical properties ending the section with solubility. Then I would move from water solubility to pH and pKa and then to reactivity starting with the systems with the greatest bond polarity. I would leave the less reactive hydrocarbon systems to the end of the course.
My logic is that if students can appreciate the chemistry of a polar system like a carbonyl first, when one goes to alkene, allyl, or even aromatic systems they can see that the fundamental reactions are the same, with the added wrinkle that you no longer have the same level of bond polarization.
I am curious to know what others would do if they could create their own book just by thinking about it.
T.S. Hall
Prostate Cancer, Round 2
2 days ago
The day you posted this, I ran into a guy working for a publisher, lol. I wonder if the Kindle and Nook are going to change the publishing game any. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThe McGraw-Hill reps pointed out to me that when we go entirely electronic the need to push out new editions should decrease. That would be nice.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of good things with electronic editions.
physical properties are hard to teach in lecture - unless you have lots of good real world tie ins.
pH and pKa are critical.
Paul Scudder (New College Fl) has some great comments on how to teach orgo as a decision based mechanism course. I think he is trying to teach people to think like organic chemists think.
I really like Clayden's orgo text by Oxford Press. I think he starts with carbonyl chemistry.
I'm indifferent to reaction order, but I think that a return to more emphasis on current research in the text would make the students feel less that they are memorizing a subject for which all the answers are known.
"Database vs. Expert System Teaching Paradigms: Using Organic Reaction Mechanisms to Teach Chemical Intuition." Paul H. Scudder; J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 777-781.
ReplyDeleteRandy,
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy the emphasis on current research in text books personally. I have a hard copy of the Clayden text, I've shown it to many people and everyone has found many wonderful examples in this book illustrating the powerful concepts of organic chemistry. I don't like the electronic format much myself, but I think future generations will be much more receptive to that format and the interactions that can be gained. It's a new era for instructors and I think they should experiment, especially the tenured folks.
Orgo is a foundation class. Students learn to think mechanistically by seeing how electrons rearrange when molecules interact. There a few rules of thumb that are very useful when considering the prospect of a transformation or when trying to rationalize how a transformation happened. Organic is where a chemist learns to think mechanistically and that is a very powerful tool.
ReplyDeleteI think that the current curriculum as practiced works pretty well. There is a good mix of descriptive and theoretical chemistry in the usual organic plan of study.
If I might offer a suggestion, it would be that a rethink should be done with freshman and inorganic chem. Freshman chem is a mile wide and a foot deep. I wonder if greater depth on a bit less variety would make the class more useful to non-majors?
In regard to inorganic, it morphed into largely an MO and symmetry experience a long time ago. Ther is no disputing the value of this content, but it comes at the expense of descriptive, wet chemical knowledge of the elements. I would like to see a bit more emphasis in inorganic synthesis in the undergraduate experience.
To Felix:
ReplyDeleteOn the e-book issue I must admit to be old fashioned and I love sitting among my scores of 18th, 19th and 20th century chemistry books leafing through the pages. I even miss paper journals.
My student however appear to have little interest in reading, let alone books. With the cost of printed text I have no doubt that students will increasingly turn to e-books and book vendors and faculty will follow.
On the Clayden text. There is much to like in that text, however, I think it would be difficult for students and therefore difficult to teach from. I look at it frequently and will be interested to see how it develops.
To Randy:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reference. I have been a fan of Paul Scudder for many years. I have had a copy of his Electron Flow in Organic Chemistry text since it first came out. It was his text that convinced me that we should touch on Hard-Soft Acid-Base Theory in the organic course.
Gaussling,
ReplyDeleteAre you going to be at the San Fran ACS meeting? We should get together!
It turns out that I'm not going after all. There was somekind of registration SNAFU and my talk on the safety issues relating to new class of energetic materials got rejected from the CH&S division lineup. Seems they'd rather talk about undergrad lab safety the whole time. Due to the new automation on the web site or simple indifference, nobody could be bothered to contact me to say that the talk was not accepted in their section. Naturally, the site is Spartan in regard to options for feedback. I'm kind of torqued about it. Can you tell?
ReplyDelete