i_need_a_non_identifiable_name [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: November 21st, 2023

help-circle



  • I slightly disagree.

    When learning anything there’s always an extra layer of depth one can go into when explaining things. And the reverse is always true, there is always a layer of depth you can stop at before going deeper. Teaching children the basics of chemistry to a point that it’s functional for understanding the world around them in a way they need to without all the “nerd shit” is possible. I’m from the UK (didn’t do Nuffield chemistry) and at GCSE level we were taught orbitals are the simple rings with 8 electrons in each orbital ring (and 2 in the innermost one). We were taught this as fact even though the teachers knew this was not accurate information, and the concept of s, p and f orbitals were never even mentioned in our lessons. It wasn’t until I did my A levels that we were taught about s, p and f orbitals and the simplified GCSE explanation helped introduce this concept to me (although I’m aware I only speak for myself). The simple 8 electrons per one orbital ring model is outdated and scientifically inaccurate (I assume, I’m not a chemist lol) but still helpful. The same way there are probably many simplified explanations for what molecules are, or what the concept of polarity is without having to make things unnecessarily complicated to kids learning about chemistry for the first time.

    I guess this is why we as a society need to make the field of teaching more evidence-based to find out which solution using these concepts is the best and most effective way to make concepts stick. But in my opinion, the way I’ve internalised information the best way even when things get harder down the line is just being taught a very simplified, maybe even outdated model to expand upon later.