Teaching Science

Chemistry by its very nature is a non-linear course. This is because pupils have some knowledge required at each stage but not necessarily lack higher order thinking.

What does this mean? Chemistry is summative, and a careful assessment, honest too, of what one needs to learn or spend time to master can bring about dramatic increases in grades.

But chemistry is also everywhere, meaning that the range of contexts available to examiners for testing is truly unlimited. It follows that the `basics` to use a hackneyed term, have to be learned carefully.

The latter can be frustrating: frequently one does not see the reasoning behind seemingly routine sessions on atomic structure; or the purpose behind balancing equations is lost to all but the most tenacious. This in turn can make pupils or students feel that their time is being wasted.

What do I see as a way out of that initial mental block: chemistry is frustrating and abstruse?

Wider reading, frequent mental or concept maps, and the use of a wide variety of resources for self study and in interaction with peers and teacher. However, this needs to be supplemented by a careful look at other sciences, as all sciences follow a basic approach: how science works is the `new` priniciple behind all the higher grade questions in chemistry, biology and physics. Surely this could serve one well in higher education?

It does. But so does communication skills: literacy and succinct answers are required to display one`s understanding of the most essential concepts.

So I see the way out of difficulty as one of exploration and rigour: on the part of the pupil/student, as well as a careful evaluation of results by the teacher.

That said, chemistry is hard in that it demands memory, application, problem solving and more than anything else, a certain trust and openness to new ideas. But the results are well worth it. I believe that my purpose as a chemistry teacher is to allow others to see this.