next »

[labronx]

I had a similar problem in my Dynamics class (Dynamics is the study of motion). 
So in the few spare minutes every now and then, I spice up the class with statements on the historical evolution of the discipline and on various ways people from OTHER disciplines tried to tackle the problem at hand.

Here is how I introduced Newton's three laws: using Thomas Aquinas.  I give them both, below.
Try to get to the 'core' concept of each topic and see what is really involved.  Remove the mask of chemistry from it and think about what other people did to discuss the same core concept.  See below:

Method 1 – Thomas Aquinas
It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


Method 2 – Issac Newton
Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line, except in so far as it is compelled by forces to change that state.
Change of motion is proportional to the force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the force acts.
To every action there is always an equal and contrary reaction; or, the mutual actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely directed along the same straight line.

[cyano]

Actual demos are more exciting than videos. For example, you can add sodium to water (behind a safety shield of course) and then as mentioned, calculate enthalpy. I have also done thermite outside in a grassy area with the students well back. Oscillating clock reactions are good for kinetics. Multi-indicators make fun demos for acids and bases. Exploding hydrogen balloons can be used for redox reactions. JCE has lots of ideas. It does take a number of years to build up a library of demos. Even a demo a week, helps keep the students hooked on chemistry and is fun for you too.

[crankychemist]

Thanks to all those who posted helpful suggestions; I'll incorporate some demos, and just accept some level of the boredom I sense- I just sat in on a much-beloved colleague's class, and while it is no doubt better than mine, it's not THAT much better.

And to the not so helpful suggestion re: wardrobe (I'll be a nice junior member here, and not name names):
grow up.

CC

[high_energy_photons]

Spicing up a lecture is good, but beware of making it too much flash and too little substance.  I know a certain professor who uses clips and demos for almost everything.  Often, his students complain that they aren't getting the nuts and bolts of the information that they need.  They actually ask for more white board work, even though it is boring.  They recognize that they need that information to understand all the flash and fun. 

I doubt you would go to that extreme, but keep in mind that students often expect a certain amount of boring repetition in lower level science classes.  Making it interesting without stripping it of meaning is a constant struggle.

[francie_]

If it wouldn't get you in trouble with your administration, or Homeland Security (though it probably would), my suggestion would be to have students investigate the various numerous scary explosives recipes available on the internet.  Make it contest!  They would have to analyze, but not acutally concoct, the chemical components involved.  Most scary/lethal recipe wins.

And be sure to write us from Gitmo to let us know how this went.

[doctordave]

I know chemistry has to be a huge challenge to make interesting to students who are in the early stages of their college educations.  I think most students are far more interested in the bigger picture or higher levels of how things are organized and work at this stage... and later become more interested in the nitty-gritty details.

I see this in my Biology courses as well.  Introductory Biology is traditionally taught by levels of organization, starting at the bottom and moving upward.  So the first parts of the course cover basic chemistry and biochemistry.... moving upward to cell biology, metabolism, and genetics... and then finally into organismal biology.  Most students don't seem to like this approach, because they simply aren't that interested in the nitty-gritty of the lower levels.  I see this in my Anatomy and Physiology courses as well.  Their eyes glaze over during cell biology and biochemistry review... and TISSUES... I find tissues fascinating, but they can't relate.  LOL!

At any rate, I assume anything you can do to relate chemistry to the bigger real VISIBLE world picture of things would be good for most students.  This is always a big challenge! 

Hell, I wish I could go back and take General Chemistry again.  And Physics.  I'm sure I would "get it" so much more now than when I was 19.