Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching Aims

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essentials of Chemical Education

Abstract

Formulae often dominate our curricula. As long as the learner does not comprehend the information content of these symbols, they also do not understand the chemistry. They often make fun of their incomprehension of chemistry, and say: “I never understood chemistry – but look what high level position I could reach without it” [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Scheible A (1969) Ist unser Chemieunterricht noch zeitgemäß? MNU 22:449

    Google Scholar 

  2. Erhart H (1998) Chemie – einer der unbeliebtesten Unterrichtsgegenstände? Chem Sch 4:29

    Google Scholar 

  3. MNU, GDCh, GDCP et al. (1998) Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung an der Schwelle zu einem neuen Jahrhundert. CHEMKON 5:209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bildungsrat D (1971) Empfehlungen der Bildungskommission. Strukturplan für das Bildungswesen. Beltz, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  5. Möller Ch (1973) Technik der Lehrplanung. Weinheim, Beltz

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bloom BS (1972) Taxonomie von Lernzielen im kognitiven Bereich. Weinheim, Beltz

    Google Scholar 

  7. Klafki W (1980) Die bildungstheoretische Didaktik. WPB 1:32

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schulz W (1980) Die lerntheoretische Didaktik. WPB 1:80

    Google Scholar 

  9. Möller Ch (1980) Die curriculare Didaktik. WPB 1:164

    Google Scholar 

  10. Winkel R (1980) Die kritisch-kommunikative Didaktik. WPB 1:200

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cube FV (1980) Die informationstheoretisch-kybernetische Didaktik. WPB 1:120

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blankertz H (1973) Theorien und Modelle der Didaktik. Juventa, München

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ruprecht H (1976) Modelle grundlegender didaktischer Theorien. Schroedel, Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer H-L (2009) Leitfaden Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Cornelsen, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. Heimann P, Otto G, Schulz W (1965) Unterricht. Analyse und Planung. Schroedel, Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bönsch M (1976) Unterrichtsanalyse. Erziehung und Unterricht 10:676

    Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer H-L (1984) Leitfaden zur Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Scriptor, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kultusminister NRW (1993) Richtlinien und Lehrpläne, Chemie, Gymnasium SI/II. Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  19. MNU (2000) Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung von Lehrplänen bzw. Richtlinien für den Chemieunterricht. MNU 53:161

    Google Scholar 

  20. Parchmann I, Kaufmann H (2004) Kompetenzen entwickeln. Wie Bildungsstandards zu einer Chance fuer Schulentwicklung werden koennen. Unterricht Chemie 17:4

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schmidt M (1972) Didaktik Chemie. Schwann, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moeller K (2005–2008) Die KiNT-Boxen – Kinder lernen Naturwissenschaft und Technik im Sachunterricht. Spectra, Essen

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  24. Department for Education and Employment, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) The National Curriculum for England – Science. Stationery Office Books, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  25. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1973) Die Psychologie des Kindes. Deutscher Taschenbuch, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gräber W, Stork H (1984) Die Entwicklungspsychologie Jean Piagets als Mahnerin und Helferin im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. MNU 37:257

    Google Scholar 

  27. Duit R (1996) Lernen als Konzeptwechsel im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. IPN, Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heilbronner E, Wyss E (1983) Bild einer Wissenschaft: Chemie. ChiuZ 17:69

    Google Scholar 

  29. Barke H-D, Hilbing CH (2000) Image von Chemie und Chemieunterricht. ChiuZ 34:16

    Google Scholar 

  30. Müller-Harbich G et al (1990) Die Einstellung von Realschülern zum Chemieunterricht, zu Umweltproblemen und zur Chemie. Chim did 16:150

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gräber W (1992) Untersuchungen zum Schülerinteresse an Chemie und Chemieunterricht. Chem Sch 39:270, 354

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wanjek J, Barke H-D (1998) Einfluss eines alltagsorientierten Chemieunterrichts auf die Entwicklung von Interessen und Einstellungen. In: Behrendt H (ed) Zur Didaktik der Physik und Chemie. Leuchtturm, Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harsch G, Heimann R (1998) Didaktik der Organischen Chemie nach dem PIN-Konzept. Vom Ordnen der Phänomene zum vernetzten Denken. Vieweg, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmidkunz H, Büttner D (1985) Chemieunterricht im Spiralcurriculum. NiU PC 33:19

    Google Scholar 

  35. Winkel R (1993) Langweilig sein, die ärgste Sünde des Unterrichts. DLZ 11, März

    Google Scholar 

  36. Memmert W (1977) Didaktik in Graphiken und Tabellen. Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schmidkunz H, Lindemann H (1973) Das forschend-entwickelnde Unterrichtsverfahren. München

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jansen W et al. (1986) Geschichte der Chemie im Chemieunterricht - das historisch-problemorientierte Unterrichtsverfahren. Teile 1 und 2. MNU 39:321, 391

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Frey K (1982) Die Projektmethode. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  40. Barke H-D (1999) Wasser und Umwelt. In: Münzinger W, Frey K (eds) Chemie in Projekten. IPN, Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  41. Münzinger W, Frey K (1986) Chemie in Projekten. Kiel, IPN

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bruhn J (1993) Probleme unserer Zeit als Herausforderung für den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. MNU 46:195

    Google Scholar 

Further readings

  • Allix NM (2000) The theory of multiple intelligences: a case of missing cognitive matter. Aust J Educ 44:272–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames C (1992) Classrooms: goals, structures and student motivation. J Educ Psychol 84:261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal PJ (2006) Addressing the philosophical confusion regarding constructivism in chemical education. J Chem Educ 83:324–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer S, Riesselmann M, Warren T (2002) Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations on chemistry, English and art questions. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, New Orleans, USA. Available from http://eric.ed.gov

  • Bodner GM (2003) Problem solving: the difference between what we do and what we tell students to do. Univ Chem Educ 7:37–45, http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_7_No2_tcm18-7045.pdf

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bodner G, Domin D (2000) Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. Univ Chem Educ 4:24–30, http://www.rsc.org/images/Vol_4_No1_tcm18-7038.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucat R (2004) Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward: applied research in chemistry education. Chem Educ Res Pract 5:215–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardellini L (2004) Philosophical confusion in chemical education research – constructivism and chemical education. J Chem Educ 81:194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chi MTH, Slotta JD, de Leeuw N (1994) From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learn Instruct 4:27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy I-AN, Kendeou P, Ioannides C (2003) Reading about energy: the effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemp Educ Psychol 28:335–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly JF (2004) Humanizing science education. Sci Educ 88:762–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E, Scott P (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Easley J (1978) Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Stud Sci Educ 5:61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit R, Treagust DF (2003) Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Int J Sci Educ 25:671–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eybe H, Schmidt H-J (2001) Quality criteria and exemplary papers in chemistry education research. Int J Sci Educ 23:209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Eylon BS, Linn MC (1988) Learning and instruction: an examination of four research perspectives in science education. Rev Educ Res 58:251–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone AH (1997) Chemistry teaching – science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture. J Chem Educ 74:262–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer EF (1995) Conceptual change or conceptual profile change. Sci Educ 4:267–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurrenburn S, Pickering M (1987) Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? J Chem Educ 64:508–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15:4–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike KA, Posner GJ (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In: Duschl RA, Hamilton RJ (eds) Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp 147–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai RH, Sadler PM (2007) High school chemistry instructional practices and their association with college chemistry grades. J Chem Educ 84:1040–1046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson LM, Venville GJ, Harrison AG, Treagust DF (1997) A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Sci Educ 81:387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Didaktik der Chemie, Westf. Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149, Münster, Germany

    Prof.Dr. Hans-Dieter Barke & Prof.Dr. Günther Harsch

  2. School of Chemistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Bldg. F11, Australia

    Dr. Siegbert Schmid

Authors
  1. Prof.Dr. Hans-Dieter Barke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof.Dr. Günther Harsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Siegbert Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Dieter Barke .

Problems and Exercises

Problems and Exercises

  1. P3.1.

    Learning objectives can be distinguished according to the cognitive, affective, and psychomotoric dimension. Use examples of your choice to show three different teaching goals for the three dimensions.

  2. P3.2.

    Operationalized learning objectives give very detailed operations for the student to achieve a very detailed teaching goal. Convert the three written goals of the learning objectives from P3.1 into operationalized learning goals.

  3. P3.3.

    Learning objectives can be differentiated and hierarchized. Choose an example of learning objectives and hierarchize different teaching goals according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Choose another example and differentiate goals according to the taxonomy of German experts.

  4. P3.4.

    There exist different didactical approaches to not only realize teaching goals in one way, but in many different ways, which make lessons interesting for the student. Name all approaches. Use the example of “redox reactions” to give brief introductions for each approach.

  5. P3.5.

    There are different schemes to prepare the lessons of 1 or 2 h. Create a lesson plan for a topic and age group of your choice. It should include the didactical discussion of the learning path (see the following “scheme for a lesson plan”).

Scheme for a lesson plan (suggestion):

  1. 1.

    Topic, problem, learning objectives

  2. 2.

    Technical bases for the topic

  3. 3.

    Requirements for the students

  4. 4.

    Methodological–didactical considerations of the concept

  5. 5.

    Outline of the lesson (if applicable with the following grid: time, planned teacher behavior, expected student behavior, media/comments).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barke, HD., Harsch, G., Schmid, S. (2012). Teaching Aims. In: Essentials of Chemical Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21756-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation