During the Golden Age of Science Education, three major chemistry curriculum projects were developed with support form the National Science Foundation, namely, Chemical Education Materials Study (CHEM Study chemistry), Chemical Bond Approach (CBA) and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Chemistry (IAC). The table below compares some of the features of these three programs.
Chemistry
Course Approach Curriculum CHEM
Study (Harvey Mudd
College, Claremont, CA) Chemical concepts
should be developed inductively by active student
involvement. The laboratory experiments are designed for
student to gather data, not verify concepts. Three
commercial versions of CHEM were created after the original
curriculum was designed. Student Text:
Chemistry: An Experimental Science (W. H.
Freeman) Laboratory
Manual Teacher's
Guide Tests Films Programmed
materials CBA (Reed College,
Portland, OR) The course is
organized around a conceptual theme---the chemical bond.
Students are encouraged to use theoretical models to explain
data. The lab is integrated with discussion with the text.
Student Text:
Chemical Systems Laboratory
Manual Teacher's
Guide Teacher's Laboratory
Guide IAC (University of
Maryland) IAC is an
interdisciplinary approach to chemistry. After an
introductory module, unifying themes connect students to
various areas of chemistry such as organic, nuclear,
environmental. Student Texts
(Modules): • Reactions and
Reason • Diversity and
Periodicity (Inorganic) • Form and
Function (Organic) • Molecules in
Living Systems (Biochemistry) • The Heart of
the Matter (Nuclear) • The Delecate
Balance (Environmental) • Communities
of Molecules (Physical)
These three chemistry programs represent two very different approaches to the subject. CHEM Study and CBA were innovative, but were closely aligned to the traditional organization and approach to chemistry. IAC, on the other hand, was more socially relevant in that there was a closer connection to the real world of the student, and the materials were interdisciplinary. Furthermore, the IAC was designed as a series of modules, a forerunner of the Individualized Science Instructional System (ISIS), which designed over thirty minicourses in general science, Earth science, biology, chemistry, physics.
According to Shymansky, Kyle and Alport, CHEM Study and CBA did not fare as well as the NSF projects in physics and biology. As they put it, "of the three traditional secondary disciplines (biology, chemistry, and physics), it probably safe to conclude on the basis of of the data ... that the new chemistry curricula produced the least impact in terms of enhanced student performances." Student performances were low in achievement and process skills. The authors speculate that the small differences in achievement may have been due to the fact that CHEM Study and CBA were not too different than traditional chemistry courses.