The DOI matches its Crossref record.
TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY - LOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL?
Abstract
Chemistry is regarded as a difficult subject for students. The difficulties may lie in human learning as well as in the intrinsic nature of the subject. Concepts form from our senses by noticing common factors and regularities and by establishing examples and non-examples. This direct concept formation is possible in recognising, for instance, metals or flammable substances, but quite impossible for concepts like ‘element’ or ‘compound’, bonding types, internal crystal structures and family groupings such as alcohols, ketones or carbohydrates. The psychology for the formation of most of chemical concepts is quite different from that of the ‘normal’ world. We have the added complication of operating on and interrelating three levels of thought: the macro and tangible, the sub micro atomic and molecular, and the representational use of symbols and mathematics. It is psychological folly to introduce learners to ideas at all three levels simultaneously. Herein lies the origins of many misconceptions. The trained chemist can keep these three in balance, but not the learner. This paper explores the possibilities, for the curriculum, of a psychological approach in terms of curricular order, the gradual development of concepts, the function of laboratory work and the place of quantitative ideas. Chemical education research has advanced enough to offer pointers to the teacher, the administrator and the publisher of how our subject may be more effectively shared with our students. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur.: 2000, 1, 9- 15]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20027 · Cited by 295
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009) · Models and Modeling in Science Education · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1 · Cited by 240
Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2021) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnstone, A. H.
- Venue
- Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-15
- ISSN
- 1109-4028 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-1108
- OpenAlex
- W2027853804
- Cited by
- 620
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY - LOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/a9rp90001b
- The paper
- Johnstone, A. H. (2000). TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY - LOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1039/a9rp90001b
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.