Russian Journal of General Chemistry

, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 819–829 | Cite as

Chemical experiment in Russian schools

  • D. M. Zhilin
Supplement: Rossiiskii Khimicheskii Zhurnal-Zhurnal Rossiiskogo Khimicheskogo Obshchestva im. D.I. Mendeleeva (Russian Chemistry Journal)


Many arguments in favor of chemical experiment, both old and new ones, were put forward. It was demonstrated that chemical experiment is valuable by itself and instrumental in teaching and forms metadomain skills. The idea that chemical experiment should form concepts rather than illustrate them was substantiated.

Opportunities for chemical experiments in modern Russian schools were considered. Legislation dealing with chemical experiment was criticized for numerous collisions, and possible ways to avoid these collisions were suggested. It was noted that staffing problem could be reduced reasonably by encouraging teachers. For methodological support, which is also crucial, some points of development were indicated (digital laboratories, inquiry learning, and shifting the role of experiment from concept illustration to concept formation). It was stated that the supply of chemical experiment is insufficient but can be optimized by some measures that should be taken by educational authorities.


General Chemistry Chemical Agent Chemical Experiment Cognitive Conflict Personal Significance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fadeev, G.N., Dvulichanskaya, N.N., Matakova, S.A., and Volkov, A.A., in Sovremennye tendentsii razvitiya estestvennonauchnogo obrazovaniya: fundamental’noe universitetskoe obrazovanie (Current Trends in Natural-Sciences Education: Fundamental University Education), Lunin, V.V., Ed., Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2010;
  2. 2.
    Zhilin, D.M., Yunyi khimik. 130 opytov s veshchestvami (Young Chemist: 130 Experiments with Substances), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bogdanova, G.A., private communication.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorofeev, M.V. and Stuneeva, Yu.B., Khim. Shkole, 2010, no. 8, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Polosin, V.S., Khim. Shkole, 1992, nos. 3–4, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polosin, V.S., Khim. Shkole, 1980, no. 6, pp. 48–51.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhilin, D.M., Oshibki v provedenii eksperimentov i interpretatsii ikh rezul’tatov: videolektsiya (Errors in Conducting Experiments and Interpreting Their Results: Video Lecture), 2010;,, Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsvetkov, L.A., Ed., Obshchaya metodika obucheniya khimii (General Methodology of Chemistry Teaching), Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Séré, M.G., Fernandez-Gonzalez, M., Gallegos, J.A, Gonzalez-Garcia, F., De Manuel, E., Perales, F.J., and Leach, J., Images of Science Linked to Labwork: A Survey of Secondary School and University Students, Res. Sci. Educ., 2001, vol. 31, pp. 499–523.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merrienboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., and Kester, L., Educ. Psychol., 2003, vol. 38(1), pp. 5–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiryushkin, D.M. and Polosin, V.S., Metodika obucheniya khimii (Chemistry Teaching Methodology), Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tchaikovsky, Yu.V., Elementy evolyutsionnoi diatropiki (Elements of Evolution Diatropics), Moscow: Nauka, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dahlin, B. Sci. Educ., 2001, vol. 10, pp. 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halbych, J., Čtrnáctová, H., Novotný, V., in Problemy obucheniya khimii v shkolakh sotsialisticheskikh stran (Problems of Teaching Chemistry in Socialist Countries’ Schools), Sofia: Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Obshch. Obraz., 1987, part 2, pp. 138–147.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osorina, M.V., Sekretnyi mir detei v prostranstve mira vzroslykh (The Secret World of Children in the Space of the Aadult World), St. Petersburg: Piter, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E., Educ. Psychol., 2006, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stavridou, H. and Solomonidou, C., Int. J. Sci. Educ., 1998, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erlis, B.A.M. and Subramaniam, R., IASCE Conf., 2004, Singapore; Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKee, E., Williamson, V.M., and Ruebush, L.E., J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 2007, vol. 16, pp. 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baddock, M. and Bucat, R., Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2008, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1115–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamza, K. and Wickman, P.-O., Sci. Educ., 2008, vol. 92, pp. 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akhmetov, M.A., Isaeva, O.N., and Pil’nikova, N.N., Khim. Shkole, 2010, no. 4, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhilin, D.M., Khimiya-8: Uchebnik dlya srednikh obshcheobrazovatel’nykh shkol (A Textbook for Secondary General Education Schools), Moscow: BINOM: Lab. Znanii, 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhilin, D.M., Khimiya: metodicheskoe posobie dlya 8–9 klassov (Chemistry: A Study Guide for 8–9 Graders), Moscow: BINOM: Lab. Znanii., 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow Institute for Open EducationMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations