With the development during the past few decades of chemical education (and in general of science education) as a research discipline, the place of structural theories and concepts has undergone strong criticism. The main reason for this criticism is the difficulty students encounter in dealing with these concepts. An explanation of this difficulty occurs if one examines the relevant concepts from different perspectives of science education, some of which many researchers consider as conflicting theories. The perspectives employed in this paper are (i) the Piagetian developmental perspective, (ii) the Ausbelian theory of meaningful learning, (iii) the information processing theory, and (iv) the alternative conceptions movement. The implications for teaching and curriculums are discussed with respect to the following: (a) Atoms and molecules as structural units of matter; (b) classification of substances according to their electrical character; (c) teaching introductory chemistry in three cycles: macro, representational and submicro; (d) the historical method of teaching; and (e) the modern quantum mechanical structural theories.
More Information
Citation
Tsaparlis, Georgios. J. Chem. Educ.1997 74 922.
Keywords
Curriculum, Teaching/Learning Theory/Practice, Atomic Properties/Structure, Chemical Education Research, Molecular Properties/Structure
Our Secondary School editors work hard to distill all the JCE materials to produce a fraction of particular interest to high school teachers. We call it CLIC.
In recent years we have worked hard to better match our advertisers with our readers. When shopping for chemistry education materials, visit our advertisers' WWW sites first.
Take JCE along on your outreach missions. Copies of the Journal, guest access to JCE Online, our publications catalog, and more are available for your participants.