Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#51

Post by intrepidhero » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #45

datashow wrote: post #42

One unfortunate truth is that even if you make class interesting, most of the time "interesting" does not transfer to "learning". Most students only pay attention to the fun part which includes color, sound, visual effects, etc. but they quickly lose attention when cognitive engagement gets involved. Every teacher can learn a few tricks to make class fun, but it is very difficult to keep students engaged in learning…

What you really need IMO is to make lessons relevant to students. And I mean personally, deeply relevant, not "I need this arbitrary piece of trivia to jump through the next arbitrary hoop on an arbitrary series of hoops they keep throwing at us for some weird reason" relevant.

I agree. Relevance is something that lessons need and much of the curriculum I encountered in school did a pretty poor job of explaining why I might want to learn a thing. But then again, a lot of students are in a class precisely because it's a hoop they have to jump through (this was me in a lot of classes). And there is only so much a teacher can do to entice these students into interest and enthusiasm.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#52

Post by ghaff » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #26

StillBored wrote: post #18

You can replace chemistry with math in his article (and he sort of mentions this in context near the end). I can't remember once being shown the physical problems that drove progress in math until I reached calculus. I remember being bored to tears in algebra 2, a class which was basically being taught as linear algebra + trigonometry. It wasn't until the following summer that I discovered 3d transforms, and a bunch…

What I hated was having to memorize orbitals in freshman chemistry, then after taking modern physics as a junior, the orbitals were deduced easily. Anyway, I hated chemistry, as it seemed all rote memorization. Physics was so much better. It’s also more applicable to RF.

One of the challenges with curricula generally is that there are a lot of dependencies and you sort of have to use a certain amount of rote memorization to jumpstart things. Organic chemistry in particular, which I did not get along well with, I recall as requiring a lot of memorization because at that level you just don't have the tools to figure out how reactions will progress from first principles.

Even physics, if you haven't had calculus yet, you end up having to memorize a lot of formulas because you don't know how to derive them.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#53

Post by esoterica » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

StillBored wrote: post #18

You can replace chemistry with math in his article (and he sort of mentions this in context near the end). I can't remember once being shown the physical problems that drove progress in math until I reached calculus. I remember being bored to tears in algebra 2, a class which was basically being taught as linear algebra + trigonometry. It wasn't until the following summer that I discovered 3d transforms, and a bunch…

Boring is subjective. Many people find ”practical applications” boring but pure math fun. They would find your proposed curriculum deeply uninteresting.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#54

Post by intrepidhero » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

I had a chemistry book that I read cover to cover multiple times as a kid. It introduced the periodic table, went through every major group, explained reactions, acid/bases, oxidation, fission and fusion. It was a pretty solid textbook. What was it that got me to read it over and over? Every single page had something that related to real life. What's a noble gas and why is it interesting? Well, it doesn't catch fire or corrode things, but it has this neat property when you create an electric arc in it's presence. Here are the subatomic properties that give rise to it's macroscopic properties. I'm sure it was simplified but it was presented in a fun way that encouraged my sense of wonder.

Good writing should be compelling. This true for every subject.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#55

Post by Koshkin » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

malkarouri wrote: post #44

Koshkin wrote: post #34

If I were a teacher, I would begin an introductory chemistry course with these words: “Chemistry is the single most important area of knowledge today and for all foreseeable future. (Sorry physics.) This is because the world we live in and we ourselves are built from atoms, and because all future progress, the very evolution of the human being, all rest now on our understanding of the limitless possibilities presente…

That is more or less the same pitch of physics, while most of the important activity is taking place in the biosciences at the moment. The underlying assumption is reductionism: if we understood atoms best, we can understand and control everything built on them. I am not sure that I can agree with you on that. Complexity makes that a pipe dream.

We understand atoms well enough already; as far as “bioscience” is concerned, the current focus is on molecular structures (chemistry in its modern sense) as the most promising direction of research.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#56

Post by peterlk » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

intrepidhero wrote: post #49

peterlk wrote: post #31

> The laboratory work of introductory chemistry is closer to a cookbook than an experiment. Students are given incredibly precise instructions and told to find a certain result. If they fail to find the result, they are made to redo the “experiment”. This absolutely resonates with me. I am re-learning chemistry now, and this sticks out to me as something that frustrated me as a student. The amount of time that it too…

I'm not sure you can have one without the other.

That's true, but I think the point is that we're stifling exploration. I was trying to come up with an example challenge that would have been the right kind of experiment for me. The one that came to mind is as follows:

$10 (pick any amount) of gold is dissolved in a glass is front of the student. If they can get it back, the gold is theirs.

You can provide varying amounts of information to make the task easier or harder. Grades depend on creativity, effort, and communication.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#57

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

Do schools even have chem labs these days? Are the burners hooked up? Mine were, but the kids i talk to now increasingly dont get to do real chemistry. It's becoming just a book class for them.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#58

Post by crtlaltdel » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

I did not complete more than a hand full of college courses, though one of the was an intro to chem. I absolutely loved it, despite it being one of those once-a-week (Sunday morning) multi-hour slogs.

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#59

Post by oefrha » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

StillBored wrote: post #18

You can replace chemistry with math in his article (and he sort of mentions this in context near the end). I can't remember once being shown the physical problems that drove progress in math until I reached calculus. I remember being bored to tears in algebra 2, a class which was basically being taught as linear algebra + trigonometry. It wasn't until the following summer that I discovered 3d transforms, and a bunch…

> I can't remember once being shown the physical problems that drove progress in math until I reached calculus.

Progress in math often (or usually) isn’t driven by physical problems, so there’s that. Just like progress in physics often (or usually) isn’t driven by “real world” problems. Discoveries are often made before applications are found.

As a concrete example, number theory is an incredibly profound and fruitful branch of mathematics. It is also largely “useless” to this day (outside of cryptography, which uses only a small subset of number theory, and isn’t really “physical” to begin with).

Another well-known example is non-Euclidean geometry, which came into being due to the purely intellectual pursuit of the Fifth Postulate, and almost magically found its place in the theory of gravitation long afterwards.

It takes a certain kind of personality to enjoy mathematics as is, even if it seems “useless”.

(Theoretical physicist who double majored in math and physics in college here. Definitely possess the “certain kind of personality”.)

Re: Why introductory chemistry is boring: a long-term historical perspective

#60

Post by epx » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

My particular complaint was, too much focus in covalent x ionic bonds, while metallic bonds were ignored completely. Not sure if current local high school curriculum still does this.