Chemistry, not using textbook, need ideas.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Trying to plan for the next few years and am considering not using a textbook for Chemistry. Since this is in the early stages of planning I have only come up with a few things: Memorize the Periodic Table, read The Elements book, and work through the Micro Chem Kit. What other things can I add?

 

My son is military bound, but if he does go to college it will be the local College and not a competitive one, so having a transcript that will impress Harvard is not needed...just a well rounded knowledge of subjects.

[In The Great White North]

Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture [book]

 

Much more fun than micro chem. Get an old textbook so he can look things up when he wants to, as he goes along.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture [book]

 

Much more fun than micro chem. Get an old textbook so he can look things up when he wants to, as he goes along.

This looks real good. Thank you.

[Mom22ns]

I'm planning to use Caveman Chemistry along with The Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry for ds next year. I haven't decided, but I may try to add in a traditional text like flexbook to supplement, but ds will also probably go to local state college and will not major in science, so this or one non-majors college chem course will be all he ever sees of the subject. I want it to be interesting, not torture.

[Jann in TX]

My dd is a Business major-- she had to take College Chem 1 and College Biology 1... not having a solid course in highschool really would have hurt her as these were NOT easy courses at the college level!

 

Check with prospective colleges FIRST before you discount a traditional high school course!

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I'm planning to use Caveman Chemistry along with The Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry for ds next year. I haven't decided, but I may try to add in a traditional text like flexbook to supplement, but ds will also probably go to local state college and will not major in science, so this or one non-majors college chem course will be all he ever sees of the subject. I want it to be interesting, not torture.

This is what I am thinking.

[regentrude]

My dd is a Business major-- she had to take College Chem 1 and College Biology 1... not having a solid course in highschool really would have hurt her as these were NOT easy courses at the college level!

 

Check with prospective colleges FIRST before you discount a traditional high school course!

:iagree:

College Chemistry is a tough class. Having a solid highschool chemistry background will help the student a lot.

I would at least do something like Conceptual Chemistry.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

My dd is a Business major-- she had to take College Chem 1 and College Biology 1... not having a solid course in highschool really would have hurt her as these were NOT easy courses at the college level!

 

Check with prospective colleges FIRST before you discount a traditional high school course!

Thanks for the heads up.

I will keep this in mind.

[Mom22ns]

I have checked colleges and here any major that my ds is considering only requires any 2 intro science classes and Chem probably won't be one of his choices. If he does it is Chem100, a 4 hour intro class, not much more than Conceptual Chemistry. Whichever sciences he takes, he will actually probably take at the CC while still in high school (yes we've already checked that they transfer).

 

An interesting and not tortuous intro fits the bill perfectly. The college classes assume no prior knowledge, but are tough if you really have no prior knowledge.

[Miss Marple]

My dd is a Business major-- she had to take College Chem 1 and College Biology 1... not having a solid course in highschool really would have hurt her as these were NOT easy courses at the college level!

 

Check with prospective colleges FIRST before you discount a traditional high school course!

 

:iagree:

Although a student may have a certain educational track in mind at some point in high school, it is always best to be prepared for changes (I've experienced this). IMO, high school course work should be relatively independent of the student's desired post-high school plans - in case those plans change. To be competitive with the public/private highschool students one would need to research the state's graduation requirements. Those are what form the backbone of our high school. We *add* in extras to meet the student's desires rather than omit regular high school courses.

 

I've seen too many students graduate with the idea that they will "find a job" "go military", etc., only to decide a year later that college was really in their best interest. My job is to make my student competitive in any realm - military, job, or college.

 

If you want to avoid a traditional textbook chemistry education, you might consider using the DIVE CD that is linked to internet readings. http://www.diveintomath.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?listcategories=action&parent=DSCI

[curtisandsheri]

Georgia Public Broadcasting has a chemistry course online at www.gpb.org/chemistry-physics. The teacher is a little corny, but the information is clearly presented and the notetaking sheets are helpful as an introduction to notetaking. We are combining the lectures with a traditional textbook for variety.

Sheri

[Julie in MN]

not having a solid course in highschool really would have hurt her as these were NOT easy courses at the college level!

Speaking just for myself as a college student, the reason I had a hard time with college science, the reason I kept trying different sciences and dropping out of them, is because I hated science. It wasn't a matter of the material being too hard or me not being able to do the work to bring myself up to par. I had been able to do that in all my other courses -- I was able to bring myself up to speed even after a year and a half out of school altogether and before that a high school experience that was lame at best. However, the sciences I hated. They all sounded dull, dry, boring, lifeless. They all sounded like Charlie Brown's teacher saying wah wah wah. Here's me in a college science course:

 

So, theoretically I believe that the idea of drawing a kid into the sciences is a worthy idea. I also think that things like getting to know the periodic table well are foundational and might take a student a long way, compared to the quick memorize-and-forget treatment that is often par for the course. I've always wanted to spend more time with Teresa Bondora's materials on that.

 

The other thing I'd really try to get in would be any chemistry vocabulary that you can. Labs would also be important to me, such as Experiences in Chemistry. And in my experience with trying to draw my youngest sciency-but-hates-textbook-science kid in, I've found that as the year progresses, the science textbook becomes an option again. Both as a change of pace, and because he's become a bit more engaged with the vocab that science folks are dialoguing in.

 

I plan to use Spectrum Chemistry with my child, so there will be lots of labs and not quite as much reading. But we've done a lot of our own thing in the sciences, too.

 

Julie

[Miss Marple]

I plan to use Spectrum Chemistry with my child, so there will be lots of labs and not quite as much reading. But we've done a lot of our own thing in the sciences, too.

 

This is a great option also. Very hands-on without being overwhelming.

[EKS]

When I was in high school I was most definitely *not* going into science. I took Algebra I and geometry twice and got a D in Algebra II. Instead of taking chemistry and physics, I took marine biology, botany, and geology.

 

I ended up being a biochemistry major. A (much) stronger math background coupled with high school courses in physics and chemistry (even if they were only conceptual-type courses) would have been most helpful.

 

My point is you never know what a kid is going to do.

 

On the subject of planning a non-traditional chemistry course, I'd *not* have him memorize the periodic table. It is not necessary and doesn't give any sort of real understanding of chemistry. It's more of a parlor trick. The Elements book is neat, but more of an aside than the meat of chemistry.

 

Like a PP said, I'd use Conceptual Chemistry or one of the other liberal arts chemistry texts. And I'd couple it with the MicroChem kit.

 

Frankly, unless your field is chemistry, I think it would be very hard to come up with a non-traditional chemistry course from scratch. I say this because *I* would find it difficult, and I supposedly have some sort of background in the subject (including working in and eventually supervising a chemistry lab for seven years).

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I was also wondering what you would achieve by memorizing the periodic table. Unless you are also memorizing things like the mass number I don't see the big advantage. (I'm not anti memorization, I just don't see the point on this one.)

 

And it does strike me that there is a lot of knowledge that is passed on via the written word. It might be a college textbook, a military training manual or an industrial operational guideline or government regulation. But there is a definite skill to being able to read and digest a lot of text quickly and competently.

 

I'm not a fan of textbooks that are disjointed, shallow, or overly biased. But I think it might be a mistake to dismiss them out of hand. They can be a concise and detailed way of transmitting information. Knowing how to learn from one seems like a useful skill for my kids to master, now while they are in the mistakes are recoverable phase of life.

[regentrude]

I was also wondering what you would achieve by memorizing the periodic table. Unless you are also memorizing things like the mass number I don't see the big advantage. (I'm not anti memorization, I just don't see the point on this one.).

 

:iagree:

Memorizing the periodic table is nice if you are actively working with chemistry and if this knowledge saves you time you'd spend looking up stuff. So, when you set up chemical equations and think about ions it is useful to remember right off the bat that calcium, because of its location, will be twice positive, whereas Chlorine will acquire an extra electron - but for a person who does not wish to engage in chemistry it is rather pointless. (A little bit like memorizing opus numbers in music education.)

 

It is far more important to understand WHY the elements are ordered this way, and what properties arise as a consequence of this.

[Julie in MN]

It is far more important to understand WHY the elements are ordered this way, and what properties arise as a consequence of this.

I'm thinking she hasn't really narrowed down exactly what her focus would be, but "getting to know the periodic table very well" might be a great goal, for me at least. Every science course I tried in college seemed to start out... "The planets are made of these gasses..." "The foods are made of these..." I feel that if I had looked at the basic elements on the periodic table as really cool, as really do-able, as forming patterns, etc etc... I might have gone into those college classrooms with a whole different desire to learn.

 

When I was in high school I was most definitely *not* going into science. I took Algebra I and geometry twice and got a D in Algebra II. Instead of taking chemistry and physics, I took marine biology, botany, and geology.

 

I ended up being a biochemistry major. A (much) stronger math background coupled with high school courses in physics and chemistry (even if they were only conceptual-type courses) would have been most helpful.

But see, maybe you would never have ended up in biochemistry if you had learned to really despise it in high school :tongue_smilie:

Edited January 24, 2012 by Julie in MN

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Thanks all.

I am in the early planning stages and needed some ideas. I still am not going to use a textbook, but will eliminate the memorizing of the periodic table.

[mcconnellboys]

My son is in a small group using this text and we have really liked it!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

:iagree:

Memorizing the periodic table is nice if you are actively working with chemistry and if this knowledge saves you time you'd spend looking up stuff. So, when you set up chemical equations and think about ions it is useful to remember right off the bat that calcium, because of its location, will be twice positive, whereas Chlorine will acquire an extra electron - but for a person who does not wish to engage in chemistry it is rather pointless. (A little bit like memorizing opus numbers in music education.)

 

It is far more important to understand WHY the elements are ordered this way, and what properties arise as a consequence of this.

 

Even so, it would seem that there would be a handful of elements that you would work with frequently, and know the characteristics of. But many more that you wouldn't need to know all that often.

 

I'm thinking of how when I was a steam engineer in the Navy, I knew certain valve numbers, alarm codes and sequences by heart. Some I specifically memorized, but many just came from daily, hourly use.