Forums

I'm wondering what peoples thoughts are on the amount of material covered in chemistry classes. It seems like there is soo much content and no time to complete it or teach it for understanding. My district has many topics that are alloted 1 week in the curriculum map...is 1 week really enough time for students to learn and understand something

This is what our district requires to be covered...it is similar to many districts around us.
Chemistry
1st Qtr
Safety & Measurement
Scientific Method(1wk)
Matter
Atoms
Electrons
Periodic Table

2nd Qtr
Molecules and Bonding
Moles
Chemical Reactions

3rd Qtr
Stoichiometry
Gas Laws

4th Quarter
Liquids/Solutions/IMF
Acids and Bases
Nuclear
Organic

Honors Chem
1st Qtr
Safety and Meas.
Scientific Method
Matter/Atoms
Electrons
Periodic Table
Molecules and Bonding

2nd Qtr
Moles
Reactions
Stoich

3rd Qtr
Gas Laws
Thermodynamics
Liquids/Solutions/IMFs
Equilibrium

4th Qtr
Acids and Bases
Electrochem
Nuclear
Organic

I occasionally struggle with this dilemma as well. I have recently transferred into a new district and am implementing new curriculum. The Big Ideas of the chemistry course can be daunting when there are so many specific topics to cover in just one course. I feel that at the high school level, chemistry could be a building course that leads to a capstone course, but then it takes students from the other science courses without letting them get exposed to more areas within the sciences. I find that a survey of the Big Ideas with topics linking subtopics becomes helpful because it frequently returns to ideas that were previously covered. I try to diagnose the ideas that will be most beneficial to their understanding as they further their chemistry knowledge. I seem to spend a lot of time focusing on the math that it is difficult for me to address the descriptive chemistry like I want to.

Although I do not have a district curriculum map/pacing guide that I must follow, I do have state standards that must be taught and they cover most of what you list. We don't cover nuclear or organic chemistry, but I do have reaction rates & equilibrium that I must address and I do them at the end of the year. I don't spend a week on the scientific method, but generally fold that into my introduction to chemistry unit which covers safety, measurement, units, and basic conversions. I often find it very hard to get everything in and, depending on the year, I sometimes only get through acids and bases. My students also struggle with the math and we have a lot of required calculations in the standards. I try to spread these out and hit on some math in each unit. I also try to hit the big ideas from different angles and do bell ringers all year on review material. I also think that one has to "do" science, so I have a fair amount of labs or hands-on activities. I do think that chemistry is a very "dense" subject and could use with a little streamlining, but I'm not sure what I would cut.

I let the skill of the students dictate (some what) the speed of the class but I do keep them moving forward. At the end of the school year, we usually get thru the gas laws as well as acids and bases. I follow the state standards and just do the best I can as long as the students understand and can do the work.

I would have to say that I agree. We cover many topics quickly and at a superficial level. The questions is: is quantity better than quality? Is it better that they know a little of everything but many things, or fewer things but more in depth. I guess the answer depends on what we want our students to come out knowing and what we are preparing them for? Is it college, a state test, or simply joining the workforce? I honestly believe that Chemistry is an integral part of our everyday lives. We see it all around us when we buy packages from a store on ingredient labels and on advertisements on television. While I would want all my students to truly understand stoichiometry, at times I feel we do not give enough time to understanding the more basic fundamentals of Chemistry they will see in their everyday lives.

Thank you so much for posting this question. This is something I have been wondering a lot lately. I am a new chemistry teacher and I keep asking myself, am I teaching too much or am I teaching too little? Also, how deep should I go into topics? This year I have threw out a few chapter in my book and added others. I threw out a chapter on solids, liquids and gasses. They should understand what they are and the basics and I added nuclear chemistry. It seems to be a good decision. I am hoping we can cover a little of Organic Chemistry or a little Kinetics.

@Yetzul- I agree. My classes are too superficial. I look forward to the day when experience allows me to teach are a more integrated and focused level. It's frustrating to see this breakneck pace that is so stressful to the students.

I really agree with the BIG IDEAS concept mentioned in this forum. It's super helpful to hear confirmation of that idea. Hi, btw, I'm Rachel Robinette and I teach accelerated middle school science (covering a year and a half of material in 1 year), so I feel the stain of teaching more content than ever before. Trying to practically apply this BIG IDEAS idea :p I'm making a "Science Themes" board in my room and posting some of them for the kids to see and add to. On the board so far is "structure influences function" and soon will be conservation of mass and energy in systems. At some point I would like them to create concept maps linking the specific topics studied to these overarching themes on the "Science Themes" board. We'll see how that goes. I'm really glad I stumbled across this board its very germane to the course I teach this year.

I don't have a district mandated curriculum, though I do feel like I have a lot to cover and I really struggle especially as a new teacher to do so. Any suggestions on pacing-- especially in general level classes?

When I think back to my HS chemistry class, I think we actually covered MORE than I attempt with my students now. I also recall the the text was much smaller. Maybe what this means is that we hit the big ideas and did not spend as much time on the details. Sometimes I think publisher think the more pages and pictures the better. Perhaps we do not need to pare down the scope so much as we need to focus on essential questions and concepts.