Skip to main content

Fostering Active Chemistry Learning in Thailand: Toward a Learner-Centered Student Experiences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom
  • 1659 Accesses

Abstract

Coll, Dahsah, Chairam, and Jansoon state in Chapter 16, that Thailand like many countries worldwide has engaged in major reforms to the science curriculum. A key focus of these reforms has been a shift toward a learner-centered science curriculum. In this chapter, authors report on a number of studies to show how a learner-centered science curriculum in Thailand places major importance on shifting the mindset of Thai students from a rather less active learning role in a strongly teacher-dominated classroom to a role in which they are active learners of chemistry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Balfakih, N. M. A. (2003). The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, M. (2004). Cooperating in constructing knowledge: Case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, H., & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2000). Secondary school students’ difficulties with stoichiometry. School Science Review, 81(296), 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, D. M., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K. B. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, L. (1986). S’ Mores-demonstration of stoichiometry relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(12), 1048–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, M., & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14(2), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 671–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005a). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005b). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solution and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, R. (2003). General chemistry. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charania, N., Kausar, F., & Cassum, S. (2001). Playing jigsaw: A cooperative learning experience. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(9), 420–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chairam, S., Somsook, E., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Enhancing Thai students’ learning of chemical kinetics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M.-H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D, 11, 20–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, M. M. F., & Wong, P. S. (2004). Using a datalogger to determine first first-order kinetics and calcium carbonate in eggshells. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 859–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., Taylor, I., & Fisher, D. L. (2002). An application of the questionnaire on teacher interaction and college and university classroom environment inventory in a multicultural tertiary context. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 357–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Exploring tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses. BioScience, 48(2), 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coşto, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual, and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 379–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahsah, C. (2007). Teaching and learning using conceptual change to promote Grade 10 student understanding and numerical problem solving skills in stoichiometry. Unpublished PhD thesis. Thailand: Kasetsart University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ conceptual understanding and ability to solve stoichiometry problems. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(2), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahsah, C., & Faikhamta, C. (2008). Science education in Thailand: Curriculum reform in transition. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 291–300). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahsah, C., Coll, R. K., Cowie, B., Sung-ong, S., Yutakom, N., & Sanguanruang, S. (2009). Enhancing Grade 10 Thai students’ stoichiometry understanding and ability to solve the problems via a conceptual change perspective. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 31(1), 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominic, S. (1996). What’s a mole for? Journal of Chemical Education, 73(6), 309–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1996). The mole environment: Development and implementation of studyware. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 36(4), 625–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1998). The mole environment studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeo, S. (1996). Mathematically modeling dilution. The Chemical Educator, 1(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnivant, F. M., Simon, D. M., & Willson, S. (2002). The making of a solution: A simple but poorly understood concept in general chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 7(4), 207–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B. (2004). Drops of water and of soap solution: Students’ constraining mental models of the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 970–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, F. F. (1995). No small change: Simultaneously introducing cooperative learning and microscale experiments in an organic lab course. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(8), 718–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts ‘amount of substance’ and ‘mole’: A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modelling with magnets. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teacher Association (pp. 301–326). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8), 843–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. (1997). Drawing mental models. Science Teacher, 64(1), 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, D. C. (2000). The development of Jigsaw IV in a secondary social studies classroom. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, D. C. (2002). Jigsaw IV: Using student/teacher concerns to improve Jigsaw III. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Student experiences of carrying out a practical science investigation under direction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1201–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 283–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003a). Chemistry Textbook 2 (2nd ed). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003b). The Teacher Manual of Chemistry Textbook 2 (1st ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankun, J., Selman, S. H., Swiercz, R., & Skrzypczak-Jankun, E. (1997). Why drinking green tea could prevent cancer. Nature, 387(6633), 561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. W. (1990). The year-long first course in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(4), 299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Learning groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 441–461). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. (2003). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). London, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabapinar, F., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). The design and evaluation of a teaching-learning sequence addressing the solubility concept with Turkish secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1978). The mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55(8), 728–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, S. R., & Howe, A. C. (1994). Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(7), 653–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In A. L. Stevens & D. Gentner (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449–469). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lazrowitz, R., & Tamir, R. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Q., Kirsch, P., & Turner, R. (1996). Numeric and conceptual understanding of general chemistry at a minority institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(12), 1003–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (MoE). (1996). Education reform at the Ministry of Education Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (MoE). (2009). Core basic education curriculum B.E. 2551. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://www.curriculum2551.com/Download/2551.pdf (in Thai)

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, L. J. (1996). Teaching dilutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(8), 765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettes, C. T. C. W., Pilot, A., Roossink, H. J., & Kramers-Pals, H. (1980). Teaching and learning problem solving in science. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(7), 882–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(2), 190–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, & J. H. v. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the National Education Commission [ONEC]. (2003). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Pimdeekarnpim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Education Council [OEC]. (2006). Education in Thailand 2005/2006. Bangkok: Amarin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkash, B., & Kumar, A. (1999). Chemical kinetics illustrated by an improvised experiment. School Science Review, 80(292), 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnell, G. S. (1984). Communication in small group settings. Theory into Practice, 23(3), 246–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pravalpruk, S. (1999). Learning and assessment in the science classroom in Thailand. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raviolo, A. (2004). An analogic model for understanding the preparation of volumetric solutions. The Chemical Educator, 9(4), 211–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: Chemists’ neutralization concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 459–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. J. (1994). Stoichiometry problem solving in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. J., & Jigneus, C. (2003). Students’ strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 413–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephans, J. (1994). Targeting students’ science misconceptions: Physical science activities using conceptual change model. Riverview, FL: The Idea Factory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinger, J. B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 671–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. R. (2000). An introductory laboratory exercise on solution preparation: A rewarding experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 249–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 35–51). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard K. Coll .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix A

Stoichiometry Learning Unit: 2

Subject: Chemistry

Level: Grade 10

Topic: Average atomic mass

Time: 1 period (50 min)

Learning Outcome

  1. 1.

    Students should be able to define the meaning of an average atomic mass;

  2. 2.

    Students should be able to do the experiment and calculate average mass of objects

  3. 3.

    Students should be able to calculate atomic mass of an element

  4. 4.

    Students should be able to describe how scientists determine average atomic mass using mass spectrometer.

Science Concept

The average atomic mass of an element is the average atomic mass for the naturally occurring element, expressed in atomic mass units. The scientist uses mass spectrometer to determine the isotope of element and average atomic mass.

Learning Activities

Express and Share Ideas

  1. 1.

    Explore students idea about number of basic particles in atoms and isotope (Worksheet I)

  2. 2.

    Demonstration using red and green balls to explore students’ prior knowledge about atomic number, mass number, and isotope. Discuss the responses in class. (Isotope demonstration)

  3. 3.

    Predict how scientist determines the atomic mass of the element that has isotope. Discuss in group and in class

Challenge Ideas

  1. 4.

    Do analogy experiment about average mass of beans (Worksheet II: Average Mass Experiment)

Accommodate Ideas

  1. 5.

    Discuss the analogy experiment and link to the concept of average atomic mass

Apply Ideas

  1. 6.

    Calculate an average atomic mass of an elements (Worksheet III)

  2. 7.

    Search for information about mass spectrometer and how scientists use it to determine atomic mass. Present in next class.

Instructional Materials

Worksheets and Demonstration equipment

Assessments

  1. 1.

    Students’ response; discussion, presentation both in group and in class

  2. 2.

    Do experiment

  3. 3.

    Group activity

  4. 4.

    Worksheet

  5. 5.

    Searching and Report

  6. 6.

    Students’ Journal.

Worksheet I

Atomic number, Mass Number, and Isotope

  1. 1.

    Complete the following table

    Symbol

    Number of Proton(s)

    Number of Neutron(s)

    Number of electron(s)

    Atomic Number

    Mass Number

    \( {}_{1}^{1} {\text{H}} \)

         

    \( {}_{1}^{2} {\text{H}} \)

         

    \( {}_{1}^{3} {\text{H}} \)

         

    \( {}_{6}^{12} {\text{C}} \)

         

    \( {}_{6}^{13} {\text{C}} \)

         

    \( {}_{6}^{14} {\text{C}} \)

         

    \( {}_{7}^{14} {\text{N}} \)

         

    \( {}_{7}^{15} {\text{N}} \)

         
  2. 2.

    Are there any Isotope shown in the table from item 1? Explain

  3. 3.

    What is atomic number?

  4. 4.

    What is mass number?

  5. 5.

    What is isotope?

  6. 6.

    If an element that has isotope, how do we define the atomic mass of that element?

Worksheet II

Average Mass Experiment

Instruction: Group of three students find out the average mass of beans

Pre Questions:

  1. 1.

    What are average weight of boys and girls in our class?

  2. 2.

    What is average weight of the student in a class from the information in item 1?

  3. 3.

    How to find out the average mass of seed of bean in a beaker?

  4. 4.

    If we have three types of bean, and know average mass of each bean, how do we determine the average mass of bean?

Materials:

Three beakers, black beans, soy beans, green beans, digital balance

Procedures:

  • Weight mass of each bean in the given amount

  • Count the number of each bean in the given amount (about 40–100 seeds)

  • Calculate average mass of each seed

  • Calculate percentage of each bean compare to all beans

    e.g \( {\text{percent of green bean }} = \frac{\text{number of green bean}}{\text{number of all beans}} \times 100 \)

  • Calculate average mass of one seed of bean

\( \begin{array}{ll} {\text{Average mass of beans}} \,=\, \hfill \\ \frac{{\left( {{\text{mass of green bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of green bean}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{mass of soy bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of soy bean}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{mass of black bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of black bean}}} \right)}}{100} \hfill \\ \end{array} \)

Source: http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/goswald/chem117/labs/IsotopeLab.pdf

Worksheet III

Average Atomic Mass

  1. 1.

    The chemistry score (100 points in total) divided into three part; 50 points for test, 25 points for experiment, and 25 points for homework. Aree got 85 % from test, 77 % from experiment, and 91 % from homework, what is Aree’s chemistry score?

  2. 2.

    What is the average atomic mass of Silicon

    Isotope

    Atomic Mass

    Percent in nature

    Silicon-28

    27.98

    92.21

    Silicon-29

    28.98

    4.70

    Silicon-30

    29.97

    3.09

  3. 3.

    Carbon has two isotopes which are C-12 and C-13. The atomic mass of C-12 and C-13 are 12.000 and 13.003, respectively. If the average atomic mass of carbon is 12.011 what is the ratio of each isotope?

  4. 4.

    The results from mass spectrometer indicated that Ar composted of three isotope which are \( {}_{18}^{36} {\text{Ar}} \), \( {}_{18}^{38} {\text{Ar}} \), and \( {}_{18}^{40} {\text{Ar}} \). The amount of each isotope is 0.1, 0.3, and 99.6 %, respectively. What is the average mass of Ar?

Isotope Demonstration

Objective: Explain the meaning and determine atomic number and atomic mass of isotope of element

Material: Red balls, Green balls, round-bottom flask, periodic table

Procedure:

  1. 1.

    Tell students that using red ball represents proton, and green balls represent neutron, and round- bottom flask is a nucleus of atom

  2. 2.

    Ask students “what word represent number of proton?” and “how the number of proton important?”

  3. 3.

    Put one red ball in a flask, ask students “what element that the model represents?” and “what is atomic mass, and atomic number?” (Hydrogen; 1; 1)

  4. 4.

    Add two green balls, “what happen to this model, still be the same element? Why?,” and “what is the symbol of this?” (\( {}_{1}^{3} H \))

  5. 5.

    Add one red ball, “what happen to this model, still be the same element? Why?,” and “what is the symbol of this?” (\( {}_{2}^{4} He \))

  6. 6.

    Add more balls and ask the students to make sure that they understand about atomic mass, atomic number, and isotope.

Student’s Journal

  1. 1.

    What did you learned from this class?

  2. 2.

    Any question do you have?

  3. 3.

    Could you apply what you learned to your daily life, how?

  4. 4.

    What activities do you like the most?

  5. 5.

    What activities you do not like?

  6. 6.

    Any comment and suggestion about the teaching and learning

Appendix B

Chemical Kinetics

This experiment focuses on the kinetics of acid–base reactions. The concept of chemical kinetics of this reaction is often taught in secondary or tertiary education levels. Whilst concrete which buildings are made of is chemically different to calcium carbonate, the overall idea is similar in that acids destroy carbonates—and this experiment uses materials that are a bit easier for us to handle in the laboratory class. Acids such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) will react quickly with calcium carbonate to produce a salt, water and release gaseous carbon dioxide. Other acids such as the acids present in vinegar also react with carbonates.

The reaction is: \( {\text{CaCO}}_{3} \left( {\text{s}} \right) + 2{\text{HCl}} \left( {\text{aq}} \right) \to {\text{CaCl}}_{ 2} \left( {\text{aq}} \right) + {\text{H}}_{ 2} {\text{O}}\left( {\text{l}} \right) + {\text{CO}}_{ 2} \left( {\text{g}} \right) \)

In the reaction above, how the acid and carbonate react may depend on a number of factors which we want you to investigate. Things you can consider are: the concentration of the acid, the particle size of the carbonate, the temperature of a reaction, and any other factors you can think of. This chemical equation can be applied to determine the rate of a reaction by plotting the relationships between the production of carbon dioxide over time. The experiment is first-order in its kinetics with respect to calcium carbonate and acid. The experimental data from kinetics investigations can be analyzed using Microsoft Excel Solver.

Inquiry-Based Learning

Teachers indicate the students a POE in an inquiry-based experiment in teaching and learning chemical kinetics: acid–base reactions. The use of a POE focuses on the student's understanding of a laboratory. Students need to practice using the ideas themselves to gain the ways of thinking by requiring written responses for this experiment. Students are given to design the experiment for studying how variables affect the rate of a reaction.

Prediction-Observation-Explanation

Prediction-Observation-Explanation, POE, probes student understanding by requiring students to carry out three tasks. It is most important to ensure that students are being asked to make a POE. In the whole classes, students have to:

  • predict the outcome of some events, and justify reasons students have to support their prediction,

  • describe what students see when the reaction occurs while doing the experiment, students have to write down their observation, and

  • reconcile any conflict between what students predicted and what students observed.

Example: Predict how the surface of solid reactant, calcium carbonate, might affect the rate of a reaction, when we change the particle size from either

\( \square \) small particle sizes to larger particle sizes

or

\( \square \) large particle sizes to smaller particle sizes.

Prediction: When reacting with the same concentration of acid at the same temperature:

\( \square \) the rate of a reaction increases

\( \square \) the rate of a reaction decreases

\( \square \) the rate of a reaction does not change.

Explanation for Prediction:

Observation:

Reconciliation of Prediction and Observation:

The experimental design used in this class of inquiry-based learning seeks to enhance students processes of scientific inquiry and to enhance their understanding of chemical kinetics. Here we use POE activities in this laboratory class in combination with several other tools. First is argumentation and argumentative practice. This means each students needs to defend or ague for the rightness of his or her predictions, observations, and explanations. This type of activity is a central activity of scientists and is used within research groups, in this experiment your assigned group. Here we emphasize the knowledge of chemical kinetics by sharing individual ideas between teachers and students in the groups.

Argumentation

The rationale of argumentation in this study is the contribution of the scientific arguments to the construction of scientific knowledge. The arguments can be seen to take place as an individual activity, through thinking and writing, or as a social activity to take place within a group, a negotiated social act within a specific community. The question that needs to be asked is not only what phenomenon is, but also how it related to events, and why it is important. The classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop student's abilities to construct arguments. It is important to ensure that all students are asked to:

  • indicate both the prediction of the outcomes and provide reasons to support the prediction.

  • explore what happened, when the reaction occurs. All students have to write down their individual observations based on some personal reasoning.

  • explain what happened, when students change variables which affect the rate of a reaction for studying chemical kinetics.

  • discuss in your group, for example, students represent individual idea for few minutes through promoting appropriate classroom activities. Students might gain confidence in a deep understanding of knowledge.

Importance of Group Work

The teaching and learning approach in this experiment places emphasis on the discussion or argumentation described above in group work for promoting the negotiation and argument in order to develop the student's conceptual understanding. Teachers here in this experiment will try to encourage students to predict, observe, and explain what they are doing in the experiment in a group setting as well as in whole-class discussion. In the whole laboratory classes, students are also given the opportunity dealing with a particular problem in a group work.

Appendix C

Study Basic Chemistry with Green Tea Beverages

Jankun et al. (1997)

Green tea contains phenolic compounds. The phenolic compounds in green tea are the four flavanol: epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate. The total phenolic compounds have been determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu method. This is a colorimetric redox reaction that measures all phenolic compounds. The Folin-Ciocalteu reagent is a solution of polymeric complex ions formed from phosphomolybdic acid (H3PMo12O40) and phosphotungstic acid (H3PW12O40).

In an alkaline solution, which is adjusted by sodium carbonate solution to pH 10, phenol was dissociated to phenolate anion. Folin-Ciocalteu is reduced to blue complex during phenolic compound oxidation. The absorption is measured at 760 nm.

$$ {\text{phenol }} + {\text{ Na}}_{ 2} {\text{CO}}_{ 3} + {\text{ FC reagent }} \to {\text{blue complex}} $$

The procedure is used to measure the relative phenolic compound contents in green tea, using gallic acid as a standard. The results are typically expressed as gallic acid equivalents (GAE).

Purpose

For this experiment, the objectives are:

  1. 1.

    To study the dilution method and the concentration of solutions;

  2. 2.

    To study the calibration curve; and

  3. 3.

    To determine the total phenolic compound in green tea beverages by UV–Vis spectrometer.

Materials and Reagents

For this experiment, the materials and reagents are:

  1. 1.

    25-, 50-, and 100-ml volumetric flask;

  2. 2.

    5-ml cylinder;

  3. 3.

    ml pipette;

  4. 4.

    100-ml beaker;

  5. 5.

    Spectronic 20;

  6. 6.

    Water bath;

  7. 7.

    Balance;

  8. 8.

    Gallic acid;

  9. 9.

    Sodium carbonate; and

  10. 10.

    Folin-ciocalteu reagent.

Experiment procedures:

Part A: Prepare standard solution and create a calibration curve

  1. 1.

    Make up 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm solutions of gallic acid from the 1000 ppm gallic acid stock solution.

  2. 2.

    Add 1.0 mL aliquot of each gallic acid standard solution into beakers No.1, No.2, No.3, No.4, and No.5; add the following in order to each beaker:

    • 5 mL of 10 %v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min

    • 2 mL of 15 %w/v Na2CO3

  3. 3.

    Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25-mL volumetric flask. Adjust the volume to exactly 25 mL with distilled water.

  4. 4.

    Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.

  5. 5.

    Create a calibration curve with 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm gallic acid.

Part B-1: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample

  1. 1.

    Filter the green tea beverage through paper and dilute to 10 % with water.

  2. 2.

    Add 1.0 mL aliquot of sample solution into beakers No.1, No.2, and No.3 and add the following in order to each beaker:

    • 5 mL of 10 % v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min

    • 2 mL of 15 % w/v Na2CO3

  3. 3.

    Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25-, 50-, and 100-mL volumetric flasks, and adjust volume to exactly 25, 50, and 100 ml with distilled water.

  4. 4.

    Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.

Part B-2: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample

  1. 1.

    Filter the green tea beverage through paper and dilute to 10 % with water.

  2. 2.

    Add 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 ml aliquot of sample solution into beakers No.4, No.5, and No. 6 respectively, and add the following in order to each beaker:

    • 5 ml of 10 % v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min

    • 2 ml of 15 % w/v Na2CO3

  3. 3.

    Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25 mL volumetric flask and adjust volume to exactly 25 mL with distilled water.

  4. 4.

    Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.

Calculation

Laboratory report

Study Basic Chemistry with green tea beverages

—————————————————————

Part A: Prepare standard solution and create a calibration curve

  1. 1.

    Make up a 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm gallic acid solution from 1000 ppm gallic acid, and record the information in the table below.

     

    0 ppm

    50 ppm

    100 ppm

    150 ppm

    200 ppm

    Volume of 1000 ppm gallic acid (mL)

         

    Volume of solutions (mL)

         
  2. 2.

    Create and draw a calibration curve, using the information in the table below (Fig. A.1).

    Fig. A.1
    figure 5

    Gallic acid calibration curve

Notes

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Part B - 1: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage

 

10 % sample

(ml)

10 % FC (ml)

15 % Na2CO3 (ml)

Vtot

(ml)

A

C

ppm of GAE

Beaker No.1

1.00

5

2

25

  

Beaker No.2

1.00

5

2

50

  

Beaker No.3

1.00

5

2

100

  
  1. * V tot Total of solution volumes

Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Part B - 2: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage

 

10 % sample

(ml)

10 % FC (ml)

15 % Na2CO3 (ml)

Vtot

(ml)

A

C

ppm of GAE

Beaker No.4

1.00

5

2

25

  

Beaker No.5

2.00

5

2

25

  

Beaker No.6

3.00

5

2

25

  
  1. * Vtot = Total of solution volumes

Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Calculation

Part B - 1 Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample

1.1 Beaker No.1

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

1.2 Beaker No.2

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

1.3 Beaker No.3

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

Part B - 2 Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample

2.1 Beaker No.4

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

2.2 Beaker No.5

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

2.3 Beaker No.6

(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?

(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?

(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?

(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?

(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?

Conclusions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coll, R.K., Dahsah, C., Chairam, S., Jansoon, N. (2014). Fostering Active Chemistry Learning in Thailand: Toward a Learner-Centered Student Experiences. In: Devetak, I., Glažar, S. (eds) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics