ABSTRACT:
The primary objective of this research is to highlight effective strategies commonly used in teaching science subjects, particularly chemistry. It explores various teaching methods within the inquiry-discovery approach. Many scholars have acknowledged the benefits of inquiry-based learning, noting that pupils retain understanding better when they actively engage and apply what they learn. Additional benefits include improved student attitudes toward chemistry and increased interest, curiosity, and enjoyment of the subject. In contrast, the traditional direct-teaching method has often been criticized for fostering student disinterest, mainly due to monotonous lectures, excessive writing, limited hands-on activities, and an overreliance on whole-class instruction where students passively receive information. However, it is also important to note that teachers using the inquiry-discovery method must consider classroom organization, ensuring that seating arrangements support smooth transitions between activities. This is crucial for helping students understand the connections between different concepts. This study draws on previous research findings, classroom observations, and discussions with colleagues to assess a range of widely used strategies for teaching chemistry.
Cite this article:
Ruchi Sharma (2025), Teaching strategies for Effective Learning of chemistry- A Review, Spectrum of Emerging Sciences, 5 (1) 70-75, 10.55878/SES2025-5-1-14DOI: https://doi.org/10.55878/SES2025-5-1-14
1.
Johnstone
AH. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J
Comput Assist Learn. 1991;7(2):75–83.
2.
Talanquer
V. Learning chemistry: The journey or the destination? Chem Educ Res Pract.
2011;12(2):92–7.
3.
Prince
M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ.
2004;93(3):223–31.
4.
Sanger
MJ, Greenbowe TJ. Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in
aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual
change strategies. Int J Sci Educ. 2000;22(5):521–37.
5.
Harrison
AG, Treagust DF. Teaching and learning with analogies: Friend or foe? In:
Gilbert JK, editor. The Science of Learning Science. Springer; 2006. p. 11–38.
6.
Taber
KS. Chemical misconceptions: prevention, diagnosis and cure. Vol. 1,
Theoretical background. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2002.
7.
Gay G.
Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. New
York: Teachers College Press; 2010.
8.
American
Chemical Society. Student code of conduct for secondary science program.
Washington (DC): ACS; 2009 [cited 2012 Feb 7]. Available from: http://portal.acs.org
9.
U.S.
Department of Labor. The OSHA laboratory standard: Occupational exposure to
hazardous chemicals in laboratories. OSHA; 2011 [cited 2012 Feb 3]. Available
from: http://www.osha.gov
10.
National
Science Teachers Association. NSTA Position Statement: Liability of Science
Educators for Laboratory Safety. 2007 [cited 2012 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.nsta.org
11.
American
Chemical Society, ACS Green Chemistry Institute. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2012
Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.acs.org/gci
12.
National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The School Chemistry Laboratory
Safety Guide [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2012 Feb 5]. Available from: http://www.cpsc.gov
13.
Gilbert
JK, Treagust DF, editors. Multiple representations in chemical education.
Springer; 2009.
14.
Bransford
JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR, editors. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2000. p. 172–89.
15.
Bybee
R. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth (NH):
Heinemann Educational Books; 1997. p. 167–86.
16.
Flinn
Scientific, Inc. Teacher resources [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2012 Feb 5].
Available from: http://www.flinnsci.com/teacher-resources.aspx
17.
Ojo
AO. Effects of project, inquiry and lecture-demonstration teaching methods on
senior secondary students’ achievement in separation of mixtures practical test
[Internet]. Educ Res Rev. 2007 Jun [cited 2012 Mar 14].
18.
Justi
R, Gilbert J. Models and modelling in chemical education. In: Gilbert JK, De
Jong O, Justi R, Treagust DF, Van Driel JH, editors. Chemical education:
Towards research-based practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
p. 47–68.
19. Treagust DF, Chittleborough G, Mamiala TL.
Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science.
Int J Sci Educ. 2002;24(4):357–68.
20.
Demeo
S. Gazing a hand: A Foucauldian view of the teaching of manipulative skills to
introductory chemistry students in the United States and the potential for
transforming laboratory instruction [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2012 Apr 5].
Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2005.00330.x/pdf
21.
Hartman
H, Glasgow N. Tips for the science teacher: Research-based strategies to help
students learn. Thousand Oaks (CA): Corwin Press; 2002.
22.
Deslauriers
L, Schelew E, Wieman C. Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.
Science. 2011;332(6031):862–4.
23.
Borich
GD. Effective teaching methods. 4th ed. Columbus (OH): Merrill; 2000.
24.
Cruickshank
DR, Jenkins DB, Metcalf KK. The act of teaching. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;
2003.
25.
Goodsell
AS, Maher CA, Tinto V. Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher
education. University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment; 1992.
26.
Stover
DL, Yeager RE, Seem DL. Cooperative learning: An effective instructional
strategy. Middle School J. 1993;25(1):12–6.