Chemical Education Today

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2007 • Journal of Chemical Education 7

��

Editorial

The Art and Science of Science and Art

Is teaching an art or a science? Like both it requirescreativity and hard work, but can it be quantified suffi-ciently to satisfy a scientist? I thought about this whilereading an article in the business pages of the New YorkTimes that described attempts to predict what makes onepiece of art worth $37 million while another by the sameartist is worth only $1 million (1). Over the past five yearsDavid W. Galenson, a professor of economics at the Uni-versity of Chicago, has applied quantitative tools to thisquestion and come up with some interesting results—results that are highly controversial.

According to Galenson, most artists produce their bestwork either very early in their careers or very late in theircareers (2). Those who produced their best work early wereconceptual innovators. They conceived of art in ways thatwere different from what had gone before and they typicallythought that great art could be produced quickly and easily,once the artist had arrived at a firm idea of what the workwould be. Examples of conceptual innovators are Gauguin,Picasso, and Warhol. Those who produced their best worknear the ends of their careers were experimental innovators.They worked hard to develop their art by trial and error,experimenting with new techniques over many years and oftennot completing works they thought needed more work toachieve perfection. Examples of such late bloomers were Pol-lock and Cézanne. Two of Cézanne’s works, each a still lifebut one painted when he was 56 and the other when he was34, sold on successive days a few weeks ago for $37 millionand $1 million respectively—nicely supporting Galenson’spredictions.

It seems to me that this division of creativity into twoclasses also applies to the students we work with on a dailybasis. Some are quick studies and apparently assimilate newideas effortlessly. Others have to work really hard to developthorough understanding. It is easier to deal with the former.They are the students of whom I have heard it said that theywould learn whether they were taught well or badly, so whyworry so much about teaching? Far more rewarding, though,are the students who work tenaciously to learn. They (andwe as well) take great satisfaction from their hard-earnedknowledge. It is encouraging to have support for the idea thatsuch students may be just as creative as their more immedi-ately brilliant contemporaries. Even if it requires many yearsfor their creativity to reach fruition, they may well contrib-

ute as much or more to society.There is a strong tendency tothink that only the quick stud-ies are really creative, but weought not sell the experimen-tal innovators short during ourbrief time as their mentors. Todo so might lose much talentthat could otherwise improveour society.

Galenson’s quantitativepredictions of the prices of art and his accompanying attemptto build a theory of creativity that extends beyond visual artsto writing and other creative endeavors, have drawn bothstrong support and considerable ire. Galenson’s supportersfind his application of statistical methods to a field that ap-pears inherently non-quantifiable exciting and useful. On theother hand, many art critics and art historians hold that artand creativity are far more complicated than a quantitativetheory can encompass and that any statistical analysis mustfall far short of modeling human judgment.

We often apply this latter kind of thinking to the studyof teaching and learning. These are very complicated endeav-ors and it is difficult to measure quantitatively nuances thatmay be important keys to student learning. Galenson’s workshows that this is a poor argument for not applying scientificmethods to improve teaching. If statistics can be applied tothe evaluation of quality of art, why not to the quality ofteaching? Although we’d like to believe that teaching andlearning are complicated enough that only our great skill andcreativity—perhaps inherited at birth—enable us to do it well,the truth may be much more mundane. As it has been formany other things, it may be that a scientific, experimentalapproach is the best way to learn to teach well. Teaching maybe an art, but there are many good reasons for applying sci-ence to make it less so.

Literature Cited

1. Leonhardt, David, The Art of Pricing Great Art, New YorkTimes, November 15, 2006, p C1.

2. Galenson, David W. Old Masters and Young Geniuses, PrincetonUniversity Press: Princeton, NJ, 2005.

Teaching may be an

art, but there are

many good reasons

for applying science

to make it less so.

This first issue of a new volume reflects a change in theleadership of our Secondary School Chemistry section.

After a stint of five years, Diana Mason has steppeddown as secondary school editor, heeding the callof meetings management. Diana heads up two up-

coming efforts: the ChemEd 2007 meeting and BCCE 2010.So, she will be more active than ever in chemical education,

and will of course still serve as a roving ambassadorfor JCE.It is with great pleasure that I announce promotionof Erica Jacobsen as the new Secondary SchoolEditor and appointment of Laura Slocum as thenew Associate Editor. I expect great things from both of them,as should you. Turn the page to read all about it!

Special Note