History of Chemistry Education at Southwestern University

By: Isabel Montelongo

The Williamson County Science Building and science history at Southwestern University are rich with ground-breaking educational accomplishments. Specifically, in chemistry, Southwestern has had the privilege of having researchers, educators, and students shape the chemistry curriculum into a well-known, established department. One of the most impactful individuals in this history is John Campbell Godbey, who, in the early 20th century, was the head of the Chemistry Department at Southwestern University. During his time at Southwestern, Godbey taught chemistry courses, helped develop the chemistry department, and researched what students’ academic backgrounds were prior to studying at Southwestern. Analyzing one of Godbey’s grade books from this period with the corresponding course catalog for that year allows for a deeper understanding of Godbey, his curriculum in the classroom, and his chemistry students at Southwestern. Godbey’s 1916-1917 grade book includes class topics, class frequency, and class performance. The corresponding course catalog for the 1916-1917 school year shows what courses Godbey and other instructors taught, how many chemistry courses were taught in the Williamson County Science building that year, and what the courses Godbey taught were explained in the course catalog for students. During this growing period of chemistry education, chemists were interested in bringing lab practices to the classroom. More governmental influence to bring the study of chemistry to the classroom arose with motives of more significant economic potential. Considering these outside influences, it is essential to examine how these issues impacted changes in chemistry at Southwestern University.

As the history of chemistry and its educational impact at Southwestern University is extremely important to understanding the integration of more chemistry and lab practices into the classroom, so is the background of the history of science as a whole and how that history has been impactful to classrooms across the country. The history of chemistry in the classroom, especially in the early 20th century, is highly impactful as it challenged previous knowledge and brought new ideas in chemistry to the table. As “some of the main advances in chemistry were the result of the creativity of young and brilliant doctorate students, which often sat uncomfortably with the academic authorities of the time,”[1] the discomfort of challenging academic authorities broke through traditional beliefs. It paved the way for advanced chemistry knowledge to be passed on in classrooms. As a resource for sharing this knowledge, “textbooks played a major role in defining the different scientific disciplines and in the gradual standardization of teachers and students”¹ as they grew into a popular form of communication from teacher to student as classroom science evolved and particularly in chemistry labs and classrooms. As wonderful and student-centered as classroom science may seem, with textbooks being produced more to assist in teaching and doctorate students challenging old ways to learn updated information to teach younger generations, governmental and economic influences also pushed for classroom science to grow and evolve in the early 20th century posing a less student-centered motive for these classroom improvements. These governmental and economic pressures were “hidden intentions of the educational process, under permanent dialectical pressure for public legitimation of authority and professionalism, corporate defense, social control and stability, economic interests and political and ideological struggle”¹ that equally impacted the field of classroom science and how it formed. Throughout this growing period of the early 1900s, the science and chemistry education field, through brave challenges to trusted theories, textbooks growing as a form of teaching, and influencing governmental pressures for the economy, grew and shaped into the complex system that impacted universities across the world, including Southwestern University.

      Throughout the research of several historians studying the history of chemistry, many have only focused on what happened to the teaching of science on a national level. However, little is known about how these national trends were reflected locally, such as at Southwestern University. To better understand the chemistry department as a whole and the way that it evolved with Godbey’s leadership, utilizing the course catalog and grade book in conjunction with sources that analyze individuals taking the courses and what impacted their performance in the courses contribute to the understanding of Southwestern’s history of science and its standing in the history of science education across the country. The chemistry department at Southwestern University began teaching in 1841[2] and grew exponentially in likeness and credibility under Godbey’s leadership in the early 1900s. As a well-established chemistry department, Southwestern was built with “6,730 square feet”² to house the chemistry education department in the Williamson County Science Building. In the early 20th century, this building was home to science facilities that compared similarly to schools such as Hardin Simmons University, Austin College, Abilene Christian College, and Howard Payne College ². Southwestern’s science program was somewhat advanced for its time in size and facilities to teach students upper-level chemistry courses. Some of these upper-level courses included organic chemistry and household chemistry[3], which were subsequent courses to the general chemistry courses offered. Harrison Hale, the author of several articles that documented the specifics of the Williamson County Science Building and its facilities in comparison to other universities, did extensive research on how well equipped Southwestern was to teach chemistry students and studied how these details were reflected in students’ grades such as those in Godbey’s courses[4]. An important detail to note about the articles that Harrison Hale wrote is that John Godbey is cited as the source of information regarding the chemistry department for both articles proving not only was he present during a critical growing time for the university’s chemistry department but was also eager to show others what he was forming at Southwestern.

 With a solid understanding of the strength and progressive nature of the chemistry department at Southwestern University led by John Godbey, it is crucial to understand better the teaching processes and attitudes of the time when Godbey was a professor using the 1916-1917 grade book while teaching chemistry courses. As recorded in 1926 by A.T. Bawden, for smaller colleges and universities, in the early 20th century, schools were beginning to understand the complexity of teaching students chemistry by analyzing the differences in learning styles and understanding how crucial background knowledge in chemistry and mathematics was when teaching general chemistry in college[5]. The most intriguing statistics found in the study done by Maude Scofield comparing students with different academic backgrounds prove that not only did students perform better with high-school chemistry courses already completed, but also if they made above an 80 in their high-school courses, they were more inclined to succeed in college chemistry courses. One statistic shows that students who made above an 80 in both math and chemistry in high school only had nine students drop or make a D in the general chemistry course opposed to those who made below an 80, where 107 students either dropped the class or made a D in general chemistry[6]. These statistics prove how required high school chemistry courses were for students entering general chemistry courses at Southwestern and display the main focus of the period for educators in the chemistry department at Southwestern. John Godbey himself, as a professor, had his own questions and concerns regarding this issue. As seen in his grade book kept from the 1916-1917 school year at Southwestern, he taught many students in his chemistry courses that made grades in the 70s and ’80s instead of higher grades that they may have preferred[7]. Entrikin, with assistance from the Southwestern Chemical Society, reported on a survey conducted by Godbey, who acted upon his concerns in 1925 after experience teaching at Southwestern for a while in which “information was wanted regarding the number of students studying the sciences, the science requirements for graduation, the method of presentation of chemistry, and the qualifications of the instructors of chemistry”[8] in high schools. The results of Godbey’s survey revealed statistics that encouraged Godbey to make suggestions for the future of high school chemistry education to better prepare students for the rigorous curriculum they would face in college courses. First, the survey found that only 7% of schools required three years of science education prior to graduation compared to 32% of schools requiring no science education, which included chemistry, prior to education. Godbey’s suggestion to fix this issue was to rule across the board that there would be a two-year requirement of science courses prior to graduation[9]. In addition to the lack of teaching of chemistry, Godbey was explicitly concerned with who was teaching the chemistry courses in the first place, and it was found that about 30% of chemistry teachers in high school did not have a degree at all. Godbey suggested a better requirement of sufficient scientific knowledge for teachers who taught high-school students chemistry⁹. Godbey’s research and dedication to better understanding the student is coming into his courses and improving grades just as those seen in his 1916-1917 grade book prove his passion for chemistry education and the importance of the outstanding leadership in the Southwestern chemistry department with Godbey leading the way in the early 20th century.

The history of chemistry education is rich in details that have come together from scientists across the world and new forms of communication between teachers and students, and efforts made to boost governmental goals in the economy, all to shape the future of chemistry passed down to generations to come. These factors have all been displayed at Southwestern, especially in the early 20th century. Godbey led the chemistry department, helping students become more prepared for college chemistry courses, and understood what was expected of those college courses he was teaching. The most impactful aspects of chemistry education nationally were reflected in the chemistry department at Southwestern to be a strong, growing, and well-prepared educational institution, ready to teach the next generation of chemistry students to the highest standards.

[1] Nieto-Galan, A. (2016). Science in the Public Sphere. Routledge.

[2] Hale, Harrison. “Texas Chemical Laboratories - Then and Now.” Accessed February 23, 2022. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed074p1253.

[3] Southwestern University. “Southwestern University Course Catalog”. Southwestern University Special Collections.

[4] Harrison Hale. “Early Chemical Laboratories West of the Mississippi,” Journal of Chemical Education (1937), pp. 62-65 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed014p62)

[5] A.T. Bawden. “The First Lecture in General Chemistry,” Journal of Chemical Education Vol 3, no.9 (1926), pp. 1066-1070 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed003p1066)

[6] Maude B. Scofield. “Further Studies on Sectioning in General Chemistry” Journal of Chemical Education Vol 7, no. 1 (1930), pp. 117-126 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed007p117)

[7] John Campbell Godbey. “John Campbell Godbey’s Gradebook” Southwestern University Special Collections - Faculty 136U 3.7.

[8] J.B. Entrikin and F.C. Hodges. “A Texas High School Science Survey,” Southwestern Chemistry Society Vol 2, no. 3 (1925), pp.1-4 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed084p1579)

[9] J.B. Entrikin and F.C. Hodges. “A Texas High School Science Survey,” Southwestern Chemistry Society Vol 2, no. 3 (1925), pp.1-4 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed084p1579)