long-term prep and plan for Physical Chemistry

[serendipitous journey]

Hello!  :)  I'd like to start on organized and thorough, but not unnecessarily complicated, study plan so that I can tackle the subject of Physical Chemistry in a few years (3-6).  The goal is to be able to do the physical chemistry subsequently with my child A.; probably we'd do it as an online course from a university, such as MIT's OpenCourse 5.61, but it is possible we would tackle a text together. 

 

I understand that A. may not have the necessary maths before he finishes high school, in which case we won't be doing it.  But I'll know it! which would be super-cool IMHO.  And my post-homeschool dreams are a somewhat mathy so that would be practical as well. 

 

Pre-req-wise, what I have already is math through college calculus (quite rusty), some linear algebra and diff eq (not full courses at all, just very cursory intro), statistics for biology.  I have access to DH, who teaches advanced statistics (postgrad) and has a strong maths background, and contacts with mathy folks who could and would answer specific questions. 

 

I thought I'd work with McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry  (though the MIT course uses Mcquarrie's Quantum Chemistry -- I don't think I'm at the right stage to quibble over this yet) and I found a syllabus for half of the book at Berkeley and thought that aiming for that -- Chem 120a -- would be a good starting point.  Prereqs are: multi-variable calculus; linear algebra; college physics. 

 

Here's my rough plan (edits after feedback are this color):

 

math-path:  

1. AoPS Calculus (with digressions to refresh trig &c as needed)

2. Linear Algebra (I own A First Course in Linear Algebra and like it pretty well; DH can help me with it)

3. ??? not sure what for the multivariate calculus. MIT's OpenCourse Multivariable Calculus 18.02. 

 

physics-path:

1. Start with the Theoretical Minimum, which is flawed but useful and pretty much right at my level -- educated & rusty! 

2. Depending on how Theoretical Minimum goes, do the same authors' Quantum Mechanics. 

3. Having developed my interest and built background, probably work through a college text.  The prereq course at Berkeley seems to use Giancoli's  Physics for Scientists and Engineers so that would be my default.

OpenCourse 8.01 (Physics I), 8.02 (Physics 2)minimum.  Stronger prep would include+ 8.03 (Physics 3), 8.04 (Quantum Physics I), 8.044 (Statistical Physics I). 

 

chemistry-path

* read classic chemistry papers (here's one list) because this is a good learning method for me.

* OpenCourse chemistry 5.111/2 .

 

 

Then tackle Physical Chemistry. 

 

I'd be grateful for thoughts, suggestions, warnings, &c. 

 

[EKS]

If memory serves, we had to have three quarters of calculus, three quarters of calculus-based physics, and three quarters of general chemistry as prerequisites for physical chemistry.

 

The thought of teaching p-chem in a homeschool setting makes me tired. 

[Luckymama]

I had four semesters of calculus, two semesters of calculus-based physics, two semesters of general chem, two semesters of orgo (that was sophomore year; p chem and inorganic were junior year) before my first physical chemistry class.

 

I don't remember what we did in lab for that first p chem class...

 

Of course, this was during the second Reagan administration :lol:

[regentrude]

At our school, prereq is 3 semesters of calculus, two semesters of calculus based physics, and so many semesters of chemistry that the course is scheduled for the senior year for chemistry majors going for BA or 2nd semester Junior+1st semester Senior year for chem majors going for BS.

Your suggestions for math and physics make sense, but you did not say what you plan for actual chemistry.

 

My first thought was: if your student ends up this advanced in a few years, wouldn't it be much more likely that he attends college early rather than studying upper level courses for majors at home ? (Plus, how do you know he'd be even interested in that once he reaches high school age? I mean, you're signature indicates that the kid is in elementary age, right? If I have learned one thing from homeschooling, it is not to plan too far in advance.)

[serendipitous journey]

At our school, prereq is 3 semesters of calculus, two semesters of calculus based physics, and so many semesters of chemistry that the course is scheduled for the senior year for chemistry majors going for BA or 2nd semester Junior+1st semester Senior year for chem majors going for BS.

Your suggestions for math and physics make sense, but you did not say what you plan for actual chemistry.

 

My first thought was: if your student ends up this advanced in a few years, wouldn't it be much more likely that he attends college early rather than studying upper level courses for majors at home ? (Plus, how do you know he'd be even interested in that once he reaches high school age? I mean, you're signature indicates that the kid is in elementary age, right? If I have learned one thing from homeschooling, it is not to plan too far in advance.)

 

Thank you! 

RE actual chemistry: the default plan was a very basic chemistry prep.  For A.'s middle school chem I'm planning to do

* an old-school style chemistry lab (a la Golden Book of Chemistry Expts, The Boy Chemist, Chemistry for Boys (my link for this leads directly to the download).  I can requisition the space and $$ to set up a decent, safe, well-ventilated chem lab if I start soonish and spread the work and costs over the next few years.  Ideally this will be a broad-purpose science workshop. 

* Theodore Gray's Elements materials (book, app, maybe vault &c)

* revisit McHenry's Elements, and go through the Carbon stuff too. 

* Asimov's Short History of Chemistry (on Amazon; download courtesy of Arvind Gupta).  I'll read his essays on Chemistry, not sure if I'll have A. do this. 

* Ideally I myself will read some classic chemistry papers (here's one list) because this is a good learning method for me. 

* ETA: so it is clear we'll have to do high school chem in middle school for this to fly.  My first-pass idea for this is McMurray & Fay's Chemistry (I think this book), rec'd for this purpose (advanced chemistry with a middle-school child) by board member Mike in SA.    

 

Your point RE planning too far in advance for an elementary child is spot-on.  Here's my thinking.  We really don't want this child going to college early (naturally this may change) for several reasons.  My own requirements for his high school education are only somewhat negotiable and certainly include a chemistry course.  Given his current talents and predilections (physics and astronomy are consistent favorite science interests) and his similarity to myself, I bet he'd rather get the information & "intuition" available from PChem than do a standard AP or college-level chemistry.  Certainly I would rather teach it, and I want the maths anyhow. 

 

But even if all that fizzles, and he does something else for high school, if I want the possibility of this course I will need to start educating myself within the next year or two.  I also expect to need a good deal of self-ed for physics. 

 

I had four semesters of calculus, two semesters of calculus-based physics, two semesters of general chem, two semesters of orgo (that was sophomore year; p chem and inorganic were junior year) before my first physical chemistry class.

 

I don't remember what we did in lab for that first p chem class...

 

Of course, this was during the second Reagan administration :lol:

 

This is good to know!  From my brief overview of the Berkeley syllabus, the labs associated are spectroscopy labs.  I haven't even looked at the lab particulars and was assuming that they are impractical for us. 

 

If memory serves, we had to have three quarters of calculus, three quarters of calculus-based physics, and three quarters of general chemistry as prerequisites for physical chemistry.

 

The thought of teaching p-chem in a homeschool setting makes me tired. 

 

!!!  I can see that.  It may make me tired soon.  At the moment it seems galvanizing somehow ...

[EKS]

 

RE actual chemistry: the default plan was a very basic chemistry prep.  

 

If this is the case, I'm wondering what you mean by "physical chemistry."  The p-chem that I studied was a quarter of advanced thermodynamics and a quarter of quantum chemistry (among other topics).  And this was the watered down version for biochemists.  It would be absolutely essential to have the majors level sequence of general chemistry before attempting it.

[regentrude]

Thank you! 

RE actual chemistry: the default plan was a very basic chemistry prep.  For A.'s middle school chem I'm planning to do

* an old-school style chemistry lab (a la Golden Book of Chemistry Expts, The Boy Chemist, Chemistry for Boys (my link for this leads directly to the download).  I can requisition the space and $$ to set up a decent, safe, well-ventilated chem lab if I start soonish and spread the work and costs over the next few years.  Ideally this will be a broad-purpose science workshop. 

* Theodore Gray's Elements materials (book, app, maybe vault &c)

* revisit McHenry's Elements, and go through the Carbon stuff too. 

* Asimov's Short History of Chemistry (on Amazon; download courtesy of Arvind Gupta).  I'll read his essays on Chemistry, not sure if I'll have A. do this. 

* Ideally I myself will read some classic chemistry papers (here's one list) because this is a good learning method for me. 

 

 

...I bet he'd rather get the information & "intuition" available from PChem than do a standard AP or college-level chemistry.  Certainly I would rather teach it, and I want the maths anyhow.

 

OK, so maybe we have a semantics problem. "Physical Chemistry" is an upper level two semester chemistry course taken by chemistry majors that focuses on thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. A light middle school chemistry will NOT be an adequate preparation for this kind of course. The level of abstraction and mathematics is WAY above a standard AP level chemistry.

 

ETA: Here is a look at an exam solution that goes with the syllabus you are intending to use and is posted on the same site:

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/chem120a/exams/chem120a_exam1_sol.pdf

Just take a look at the wave functions and Schoedinger equation on page 3 , or the Heisenberg time dependent equation on page 8 for example. I highly doubt this is an "intuitive" way to learn chemistry for a student instead of a traditional course.

[serendipitous journey]

If this is the case, I'm wondering what you mean by "physical chemistry."  The p-chem that I studied was a quarter of advanced thermodynamics and a quarter of quantum chemistry (among other topics).  And this was the watered down version for biochemists.  It would be absolutely essential to have the majors level sequence of general chemistry before attempting it.

 

okay, will look into this.  Here's what I have from my brief searching: 

 

Berkeley physical chemistry course, 1 semester. 

* uses McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry. 

* There appear to be no chem prereqs. 

* The course description: "For the first 10 weeks, through November 3, we will team-teach the basics of physical chemistry and quantum mechanics. Then the course will split into two separate sections for the last 5 weeks. The first section, taught by Prof. Miller, will focus on modern electronic structure methods and applications of quantum mechanics to the spectroscopy of small molecules. The second section, taught by Prof. Yang, will focus on the spectroscopy of larger molecules in the condensed phase of relevant to Chemical Biology."  I don't think the spectroscopy stuff is feasible here. 

 

MIT's course 5.61

* main text is McQuarrie's Quantum Chemistry; there are three other PChem books listed as "other books". 

* the math and physics prereqs are as I gave above, similar to Berkeley's syllabus, with the addition of a year of chemistry 5.111/2. 

* The course description: "This course presents an introduction to quantum mechanics. It begins with an examination of the historical development of quantum theory, properties of particles and waves, wave mechanics and applications to simple systems — the particle in a box, the harmonic oscillator, the rigid rotor and the hydrogen atom. The lectures continue with a discussion of atomic structure and the Periodic Table. The final lectures cover applications to chemical bonding including valence bond and molecular orbital theory, molecular structure, spectroscopy." 

* This is probably the PChem I'd try to do, since there it is OpenCourse and there are supporting materials. 

 

So it sounds like I ought to do a year of chem.  Probably OpenCourse.  okay. 

[serendipitous journey]

OK, so maybe we have a semantics problem. "Physical Chemistry" is an upper level two semester chemistry course taken by chemistry majors that focuses on thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. A light middle school chemistry will NOT be an adequate preparation for this kind of course. The level of abstraction and mathematics is WAY above a standard AP level chemistry.

 

ETA: Here is a look at an exam solution that goes with the syllabus you are intending to use and is posted on the same site:

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/chem120a/exams/chem120a_exam1_sol.pdf

Just take a look at the wave functions and Schoedinger equation on page 3 , or the Heisenberg time dependent equation on page 8 for example. I highly doubt this is an "intuitive" way to learn chemistry for a student instead of a traditional course.

 

agreed.  By "intuitive" I just mean that at least a person is dealing with what actually happens when atoms start messing with each other, instead of reporting on what can be observed with non-quantum methods (which is seriously non-intuitive -- extrapolating the physical properties of a compound based on knowledge of constituent elements' properties seems a futile, if hilarious, task :)).  Apparently lots of folks who do a good amount of standard chem before hitting PChem feel they have to unlearn a chunk of intuition/thinking. 

 

I'd been figuring that the Shroedinger and Heisenberg stuff would be well-addressed by a good physics prep? 

 

ETA: I fully expected to need a strong maths and physics background.  Just not a fancy chem one. 

[Cosmos]

I'm curious what led you to set physical chemistry as a goal.

 

Good luck in your studies, whatever you decide to do!

 

ETA: It looks like you answered a bit about how you picked your goal while I was typing. Interesting.

[serendipitous journey]

I'm curious what led you to set physical chemistry as a goal.

 

Good luck in your studies, whatever you decide to do!

 

ETA: It looks like you answered a bit about how you picked your goal while I was typing. Interesting.

 

Might be a misguided goal!  wouldn't be the first time.  Any particular thoughts? 

[regentrude]

okay, will look into this.  Here's what I have from my brief searching: 

 

Berkeley physical chemistry course, 1 semester. 

* uses McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry. 

* There appear to be no chem prereqs. 

* The course description: "For the first 10 weeks, through November 3, we will team-teach the basics of physical chemistry and quantum mechanics. Then the course will split into two separate sections for the last 5 weeks. The first section, taught by Prof. Miller, will focus on modern electronic structure methods and applications of quantum mechanics to the spectroscopy of small molecules. The second section, taught by Prof. Yang, will focus on the spectroscopy of larger molecules in the condensed phase of relevant to Chemical Biology."  I don't think the spectroscopy stuff is feasible here. 

 

MIT's course 5.61

* main text is McQuarrie's Quantum Chemistry; there are three other PChem books listed as "other books". 

* the math and physics prereqs are as I gave above, similar to Berkeley's syllabus, with the addition of a year of chemistry 5.111/2. 

* The course description: "This course presents an introduction to quantum mechanics. It begins with an examination of the historical development of quantum theory, properties of particles and waves, wave mechanics and applications to simple systems — the particle in a box, the harmonic oscillator, the rigid rotor and the hydrogen atom. The lectures continue with a discussion of atomic structure and the Periodic Table. The final lectures cover applications to chemical bonding including valence bond and molecular orbital theory, molecular structure, spectroscopy." 

* This is probably the PChem I'd try to do, since there it is OpenCourse and there are supporting materials. 

 

So it sounds like I ought to do a year of chem.  Probably OpenCourse.  okay. 

 

yes, and then there are these details in the weekly breakdown, for example:

week 6: Spherical solution to the Schoedinger equation

week 7: variational theory, degenerate and non-degenerate perturbation theory.

 

That is heavy duty quantum mechanics. I'd want my student to have at least 3 semesters of calc based physics, including an introduction to Modern.

 

 

 

[regentrude]

I'd been figuring that the Shroedinger and Heisenberg stuff would be well-addressed by a good physics prep? 

 

Only if the student takes an actual quantum mechanics course. That would be Junior corrected: at our university it would be Senior level for physics majors.

So yeah, if your kid completes a bachelor's of physics before 12th grade, physical chemistry will be a piece of cake.

 

The student without quantum background would have to learn this IN PhysChem. It will be extremely abstract, and a student who has no clear idea what the chemistry behind it is will typically struggle with the abstraction and the math, instead of developing a clearer insight into chemistry..

[serendipitous journey]

yes, and then there are these details in the weekly breakdown, for example:

week 6: Spherical solution to the Schoedinger equation

week 7: variational theory, degenerate and non-degenerate perturbation theory.

 

That is heavy duty quantum mechanics. I'd want my student to have at least 3 semesters of calc based physics, including an introduction to Modern.

 

 

 

okay.  Thank you so much!  This is very helpful and practical. 

 

edited -- never mind!! addressed thoroughly above. 

[regentrude]

okay, will look into this.  Here's what I have from my brief searching: 

 

Berkeley physical chemistry course, 1 semester. 

* uses McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry. 

* There appear to be no chem prereqs. 

 

Yes, there are prerequisites.

 

If you look at the course descriptions from the chemistry department,

http://bulletin.berkeley.edu/courses/chem/

it lists 4B as a prerequisite for 120.

4B is General Chemistry and Quantitive analysis, and it has a highschool chemistry prerequisite.

[serendipitous journey]

Yes, there are prerequisites.

 

If you look at the course descriptions from the chemistry department,

http://bulletin.berkeley.edu/courses/chem/

it lists 4B as a prerequisite for 120.

4B is General Chemistry and Quantitive analysis, and it has a highschool chemistry prerequisite.

 

regentrude, thanks so much both for finding this information and for outlining how to get it -- I'll be careful to do due diligence and use department course descriptions in the future. 

 

[serendipitous journey]

I can't imagine anyone's waiting with bated breath for our game plan, but here it is for the interested and for future forum-searchers! 

 

Goal: Understand why basic chemistry is what it is.  Have a grasp of the major questions and theoretical approaches, if not necessarily the answers, to questions such as:

* How do physical laws lead to basic atomic structure?  This includes: why nuclei need to have neutrons; why the negatively charged electrons stay in orbitals and don't cozy up to the positively charged protons; why electrons "come in" pairs; why electron orbitals are where they are; &c.   This is quantum chemistry. 

* What, at the atomic level, are chemically important features of the environment such as pressure, heat, entropy?  This is thermodynamics, addressed with quantum mechanical tools. 

* What factors affect the speed at which reactions happen, or the probability of molecules reacting with each other?  This is chemical kinetics. 

 

A person apparently needs quantum mechanics to understand chemistry at this fundamental level.  In order to understand quantum mechanics, a person needs calculus through multivariate calculus (to describe systems in which more than one variable is changing over time) and linear algebra (a branch of algebra dealing with solving systems of equations, and with characterizing systems of equations in mathematically useful ways).  Also, a good familiarity with classical chemistry. 

 

In order to have a hope of tackling this with A. in high school my plan is to focus on the math, which is the most essential prerequisite and the one that takes the longest time to acquire.  I plan to work through the 4 levels of "Calculus Without Tears", a badly-named and imperfect but comprehensive treatment of calculus that is appropriate to begin in 4th grade and will take us through things like Fourier analyses.  If I add 6 CWT lessons a month, for example, to our math we'll work through the first volume this year.  If this works, then near the end of middle school we can begin to sort out which math to do next; if not, I will need another plan.  ;)

 

In parallel I'll start by buying a copy of McQuarrie's Quantum Chemistry and of his Physical Chemistry, along with the mathematics guide McQuarrie wrote to support Q. Chem and the problem & solutions manual.   I'll just read through the text a couple of times, once pretty fast and once trying to figure out what the equations all mean in English (I've found this a useful strategy in attacking math-dense materials, esp. when I don't have the necessary maths yet). 

 

Next I'll gather the Asimov chemistry books, copies of the classic chemistry papers I want to read, the Theoretical Minimum physics books and my stack of Calculus Without Tears books and see if there are any obvious and gaping holes.  I'll also pin down a strong middle school chemistry plan that will provide sufficient chemistry background and sufficient interest & motivation on my student's part -- strong problem-solving and reading for the former, lots of experiments for the latter.  Once I've worked through those materials & we are through middle school chemistry I can reassess. 

 

thanks, everybody!  I am so glad of the opportunity to draft a Plan A, even though 'round here we live on Plan C ...

[Orthodox6]

He is young. Will you object if he reaches high school age and strongly wants to major in foreign languages or in economics?

I do not intend this as sarcasm. Not at all. I just know what radical changes of interest very often occur in children and teens. Particularly when they are allowed to participate, to a reasonable extent, in designing a course plan for high school.

In passing, you have received excellent information from others. My chemistry major friends at a top school did not take p-chem until late in their university years.  Sequence was:  general chemistry -- organic chemistry -- inorganic chemistry -- physical chemistry.

 

I was amazed to read of the topic being considered for homeschool high school.)

[serendipitous journey]

He is young. Will you object if he reaches high school age and strongly wants to major in foreign languages or in economics?

 

 

No.  I appreciate your asking about this!  and would be sad to pigeon-hole a child at any age. 

 

Mainly I'm trying to take advantage of his temperamental requirement for an unusual amount of structured and challenging work, and make sure that what we are doing now is both locally enriching (as in, enriching to our current lives) and a good long-term investment. 

 

I also think that quantum mechanics is a cultural achievement and I'd like my students to have a stab at it; and I think if we're going to be studying chemistry then it ought to make sense, and when we hit it in 3rd grade A. was totally disenchanted and wanted to know all sorts of things that are simply not accessible to us and are not addressed in classical chem curricula (as in, why don't the electrons just go stick to the protons).   I do NOT want to train these questions out of him, and a standard chem curriculum will do just that . 

 

A.'s education is quite broad.  It's not particularly science-focused and I have no particular expectations that he'll be a science major.

[Orthodox6]

I am so relieved that you did not take my post amiss! 

 

Your son sounds delightful and most enjoyable to be around!

 

My own "journey" through academic subjects studied, followed by post-graduate-school jobs makes for entertaining reading.  The beginning point was a large scholarship for music composition; the terminal point was working as a competitive analyst in telecommunications.  (several "chapters" in between those end points!) 

 

Best wishes, and enjoy your homeschooling!

[serendipitous journey]

Orthodox6, thank you so much for for your encouragement!

[Dicentra]

Just food for thought, serendipitous. :)  The topics you mentioned - quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, and kinetics - are all covered in a good high school honours chem class.  Certainly not covered to their absolute fullest and in every detail imaginable but definitely covered.  The math required is Alg 2.  If you wanted your ds to have a taste of these topics without having to wait for him to cover multi-variable calculus, get the Chang chem text that's discussed often on here and let him read.  Those more advanced treatments of the topics that require extensive calculus will be much easier to understand if he has a solid grounding in basic chem first.  Chemistry is an odd duck of a science - most of what is taught to students who are just beginning their chemistry journey is topics that, in order to REALLY understand them, would require a Ph.D. :D  We teach beginning chem students about levels, sublevels, and orbitals in an atom in a very surface way because they need to have a very basic understanding of where the electrons are in order to be able to understand simple chemical reactions.  In teaching chemistry, I use the phrase, "This isn't all there is to this topic but we need to cover more basic chem before we circle back around to discuss it in more detail" a lot. :)  In a later chem class, we can circle back around to the quantum chem and start doing a mathematical treatment of the topic.

 

Forgive me - you probably know all of this already from your research. :)  I just wanted to suggest that if your ds heads into heavy-duty phys chem without having done a few years of gen chem first, he may be able to handle the math by that point but he might be missing other knowledge that would have been presented in gen chem and those gaps might impede his deep understanding of the phys chem topics.  As weird as the order of topics in most first chem or gen chem courses may seem, there really is a reason we teach it in the order that we do. :)

[regentrude]

Chemistry is an odd duck of a science - most of what is taught to students who are just beginning their chemistry journey is topics that, in order to REALLY understand them, would require a Ph.D. :D  We teach beginning chem students about levels, sublevels, and orbitals in an atom in a very surface way because they need to have a very basic understanding of where the electrons are in order to be able to understand simple chemical reactions.  In teaching chemistry, I use the phrase, "This isn't all there is to this topic but we need to cover more basic chem before we circle back around to discuss it in more detail" a lot. :)  In a later chem class, we can circle back around to the quantum chem and start doing a mathematical treatment of the topic.

 

.  As weird as the order of topics in most first chem or gen chem courses may seem, there really is a reason we teach it in the order that we do.

 

You have just very succinctly summarized why I hate chemistry.

 

[Dicentra]

You have just very succinctly summarized why I hate chemistry.

 

:D  Over the years, I've tried to come up with different ways and orders of topics in teaching basic chem.  No matter what alternative order I thought of, there was always a point where I ended up thinking, "Wait a minute.  I can teach that because I haven't taught this first." :)  I've seen the chemistry-first vs. the atoms-first version of chem texts but they don't actually differ all that much.  Chemistry is just the science that takes time to come to appreciate. ;)

[regentrude]

:D  Over the years, I've tried to come up with different ways and orders of topics in teaching basic chem.  No matter what alternative order I thought of, there was always a point where I ended up thinking, "Wait a minute.  I can teach that because I haven't taught this first." :)  I've seen the chemistry-first vs. the atoms-first version of chem texts but they don't actually differ all that much.  Chemistry is just the science that takes time to come to appreciate. ;)

 

LOL. Or a person is ruined by the first, second and third impressions and won't ever get to this point.

I am now on my second child with high school chemistry, and I find myself being frustrated again (like I was as a high school student, as a college student, as a first time homeschooling mom). Why should my kid care how many moles of substance A he needs to make so many grams of substance B when we don't have a clue (yet) why this reaction happens in the first place? Is there a reason all books (that I have seen) cover stoichiometry at the very beginning - other than a conspiracy to kill a student's interest in chemistry? (This is actually a real question for you, Dicentra, not a rhetorical one: why is stoichiometry covered before actual content?)

Or why should I make him memorize solubility rules which are completely arbitrary at this point? Do you think it is possible to leave all of that out - until we get to a thermodynamic understanding?

 

I marvel at the OP's ambition - she will surely take all the time necessary to come to appreciate chemistry. I for my part have given up. Give me physics straight and leave the applications to somebody else who can see beauty where I just see a jumbled mess.

I have tried the rearranging of topics, and it does not really work (not to mention that, not being a chemist, I have massive doubt when I tweak a textbook written by an expert in the field..)

[Dicentra]

LOL. Or a person is ruined by the first, second and third impressions and won't ever get to this point.

I am now on my second child with high school chemistry, and I find myself being frustrated again (like I was as a high school student, as a college student, as a first time homeschooling mom). Why should my kid care how many moles of substance A he needs to make so many grams of substance B when we don't have a clue (yet) why this reaction happens in the first place? Is there a reason all books (that I have seen) cover stoichiometry at the very beginning - other than a conspiracy to kill a student's interest in chemistry? (This is actually a real question for you, Dicentra, not a rhetorical one: why is stoichiometry covered before actual content?)

Or why should I make him memorize solubility rules which are completely arbitrary at this point? Do you think it is possible to leave all of that out - until we get to a thermodynamic understanding?

 

I marvel at the OP's ambition - she will surely take all the time necessary to come to appreciate chemistry. I for my part have given up. Give me physics straight and leave the applications to somebody else who can see beauty where I just see a jumbled mess.

I have tried the rearranging of topics, and it does not really work (not to mention that, not being a chemist, I have massive doubt when I tweak a textbook written by an expert in the field..)

 

Just realized in my post above I meant to say, "I can't teach that because I haven't taught this first."  But you probably figured that out. ;)

 

It definitely is a sticking point with chemistry.  I've thought long and hard about how to change it.  I really do hate having to say to students, "You just have to take my word on this for right now.  We'll talk about why it happens later."  I'm big on "why" for anything I'm teaching.  If students can understand why, they aren't memorizing - they're learning.

 

For what it's worth (and others may disagree with me ;) ), I don't have beginning chem students memorize much of anything.  My students are never required to memorize any part of the periodic table nor do they have to memorize extensive solubility rules or various types of reactions (and all the exceptions!).  Through continual use of the periodic table, lots of elements and their atomic numbers and masses will end up memorized naturally.  I let students look up solubilities because, quite frankly, solubilities for many of the ionic substances seem completely random unless you have some ground work in graduate level inorganic chem.  If I'm prepping students for AP Chem then, yes - they have to memorize the rules because the powers-that-be say the rules must be memorized.  Even when teaching Grade 12 Chem here in Ontario (which would be equivalent to the tougher parts of honours chem in the US), I don't have students memorize all that stuff.  I'd rather they understand the chemistry that they are learning and apply their understanding as far as it can go.  If we have to learn something (like solubility rules) where understanding just isn't possible at that level of chem, I'd rather they be able to look up the rules and apply them than waste time memorizing what, for them, is just random stuff.

 

For your ds - unless he's going to be writing some sort of standardized exam which will expect those rules to be memorized, I wouldn't force it.  Let him look them up and apply them to answer the questions and then move on.  In order to understand solubility rules, it takes extensive background in quantum chem - orbitals, understanding the exceptions to Hund's rule, etc.  If chem isn't his passion, it's probably not worth all the stress. :)

 

I cover stoich later in the Grade 11 course here in Ontario (sort of the equivalent to the first half of an honours chem course).  When I approach stoich, it's after we've talked quite a bit about the qualitative aspects of chem and I approach stoich as, basically, ratio problems.  We've already talked about (as much as we can) why reactions occur in the first place (basic orbital filling and stability) and we've talked about balancing chemical equations based on the Law of Conservation of Mass (Law of Conservation of Charge doesn't need to be mentioned until a student begins electrochem and has to balance those equations).  I present stoich as a neat trick - as long as I have a balanced chemical equation and the amount of any ONE of the substances involved in the reaction, I can use ratios to the determine the amounts of any of the other substances.  This is useful because sometimes you know how much product you want to end up with and the starting materials are expensive - we don't want to dump in far more reactant than is necessary to achieve our end goal.  Or maybe we need to know how much by-product will be made in a reaction that will produce "x" amount of needed product so that we can be prepared for dealing with said by-product.  I also approach limiting reagent questions and questions about percent yield as just slightly more involved ratio problems.  I find the analogy of how many Oreo cookies can be made using "x" number of outsides and "y" number of insides good for having the students visual the whole thing :) - particular when they seem stuck on the idea that whatever you have less of must be the limiting reagent.  If I have 5 creme centers and 8 chocolate cookie outsides, I can only make 4 Oreos.  The outsides are limiting even though there are more of them.  Once the students are comfortable dealing with numbers of outsides and insides, I start asking them what would happen if I had "x" grams of outsides and "y" grams of insides.  This leads to a discussion of needing to know the mass of an individual outside or inside before we can continue and so then leads us to why stoich doesn't work using masses of reactants or products, only moles (which are counted numbers).  I like cookies. :)

 

I think part of the problem with chemistry is that, if I'm perfectly honest, it isn't a science that's appropriate to high school.  How's that for an admission from a high school chem teacher? LOL  It's too abstract and to really understand it at the fundamental level, it does require a fairly extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics.  In an ideal world, most students should probably have some basic, intro courses in quantum theory before they start chem.  I think the problem stems from the fact that chemistry didn't start out as chemistry - it started out as alchemy.  Alchemists did all kinds of experiments and even proposed theories but all of it was done on the macro level, not the atomic level.  There was no understanding of the atomic level, let alone the quantum level.  Alchemists sort of slowly morphed into chemists and I think some of that has carried over.  Alchemists could do alchemy without knowledge of quantum mechanics so why can't high school kids do chemistry with adequate physics first?  Or so the thinking goes. ;)  Since it will probably always be thus, I just try to weave as much "why" as I can into the lower levels of chem and explain things as much as the students can handle.  If some students can handle more "why", I'll take them aside and we'll discuss it.  The rest are happy with a more... alchemist-like approach. :)

 

Good luck, OP!  Your boy sounds like he'll make an amazing chemist one day!

[regentrude]

Dicentra, thank you so much for your long thoughtful reply! This makes so much sense.