Research has proven that successful chemistry cohorts normally spend more time executing practical experiments in the laboratory rather than sitting in the classroom listening to lectures.
Researchers undertaking such job roles, please share your ideas and comments.
Sharing research done and presented in The Advanced Education & Research Conference @Robinson College, University of Cambridge, England.
Sure!
Learning Chemistry at high school level is much more effective (and successful) if accompanied by experimental laboratory works.
Though basic knowledge in Mathematics and Physics are required, "hands on" work makes Chemistry concepts more attractive and easier to understand to the students.
Chemistry is fundamental in several further University areas: Chemistry, Biochemistry, Food sciences, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Medical Sciences, Environment, Materials, Nanotechnologies, Climate, Energy, Health ...
Well, yes, I would have expected this to be a no-brainer, is there anyone claiming that teaching chemistry without experiments is more effective? I would have assumed that the question "school experiments: yes or no?" is a purely monetary question whether a country can afford chemicals and safety equiqment for its schools, not a didactic one.
Jürgen Weippert Well, I know a lot of secondary schools would skip practicals and focus solely on theoretical chemistry learning. Teachers gave plenty of excuses like a waste of time or no time to finish learning the syllabus if students spent doing experiments in the laboratory. Lots of nonsense like this...
OK, I would have expected this from politicians who don't want to spend money on schools but not from actual teachers.
Jürgen Weippert Partly. I think some teachers are governed by the voices above them like principals or someone more powerful like the stakeholders who refused to spend money in buying lab equipments, hence teachers themselves has no say at the end of the day....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology