Reflections
for Task 1
There were two components to our
first task, the first being to complete a diagnostic instrument test on
ionization energy after revising through the relevant concepts while the second
was to read a journal regarding common students’ difficulties on ionization
energy.
Initially, I thought that the task
shouldn’t pose much of a problem given my understanding of ionization energy.
However, I soon found that the diagnostic instrument test was a lot harder than
I had thought and it really stretched and tested the limits of my understanding
regarding this concept. This diagnostic instrument consisted of two parts; the
first was a multiple choice where an answer had to be selected, and the other
part would be a selection of reason for that answer chosen.
Such a diagnostic tool challenged me
to rethink some of the concepts I have taken for granted. For example, one
question asks if an electron is removed from the atom, would the attraction for
the lost electron be redistributed among the remaining electrons. At this
point, it struck me that one very intuitive answer was that the attraction
would be redistributed, because this is how things functioned in the macro
world; take one person out and the bill will have to be redistributed among the
remaining people. However, the quantum world functions differently, and the
attraction that electrons feel for the nucleus is dependent on its distance and
not how many electrons there are. There is an analogy that describes this
situation very well and it can be compared to people around a bonfire. The heat
that one feels from the fire is dependent on how far away you are. If other
people move away, the amount of heat felt does not change. If the person in
front of you moves away, u will feel more heat, as you are no longer “shielded”.
Making the fire bigger (increasing nuclear charge) will result in more heat
felt.
It was humbling to realize that
despite 4 long years of university education, such a simple conceptual question
could prove to be so thought provoking.
On a side note, since the remaining
electrons still feel the same attraction, why is the 2nd IE larger
than the first?
Reflections
for Task 2
This time we were supposed to come
up with answers to the 2011 A level paper and some ionic equilibrium questions
supplied by CJC teachers.
One immediate thing I noted while
attempting the paper was that the A level standard had gone up pretty much
since the last time I saw it. Most of the things taught now was pretty close to
university stuff. However, I felt that students were not given the appropriate
coverage to fully appreciate what was going on. For example, the transition
metal question regarding high spin and low spin, students had not previously
been taught what was HSLS. Even though the question did give some details regarding
the concept, I felt that it was a bit pointless teaching transition metal
without going into some of these d orbital concepts in the curriculum.
Everything was pretty much touch and go. I would rather students learn a
smaller variety of topics, but learn them more in depth in order for them to
gain a deeper appreciation of what was going on.
I did not face any major problems
with the ionic equilibrium questions as I had previously been teaching this
topic in Innova during my ESE. There was a wide variety of questions, 100++ to
be exact which was good practice for me and allowed me to sample a wide variety
of questions.
Reflections
for Task 3
For this task, we were supposed to read
pedagogical research papers regarding students’ misconceptions of chemical
concepts, write a summary of the research paper and do a brief presentation.
The research paper I chose was titled “Conceptualizing quanta: illuminating the
ground state of student understanding of atomic orbitals”, and it highlighted
several major problems that students faced when first introduced to the atomic
orbital concept. The issues highlighted were very pertinent as these were the
self-same problems that I faced during my college years.
One major problem that students had
was transitioning from the concept of the Bohr hydrogen model taught during
their secondary school years to the new concept of shells, subshells and
orbitals taught at the college level. There was insufficient focus paid to this
transition which caused students to feel the disconnect between these 2 models
when actually the more complicated orbital concept was simply an extension of
the simpler Bohr model. From my personal experience, teachers tend to tell
students that whatever they learnt in secondary school was “wrong”. I felt that
was a grave injustice. What they were taught was not “wrong” but rather
“incomplete”. It was still correct provided that the model was being applied in
an appropriate scenario.
As teachers, it was all too easy for
us to forget how we used to have all these wrong misconceptions too. Even
though we were students once before, now to me, it somehow seemed unfathomable
how students could have come up with such incredibly wrong theories. However,
as I read the paper, all these recollections came rushing back to me. The
confused college years when I was simply grasping around with all these vague
theories. Therefore, I felt that such papers were quite useful as it allowed us
to delve once again into the minds of a student learning these concepts for the
first time. In order to be an effective teacher, we must first go down to the
students’ level and see the world through their eyes.
Reflections
for CJC teaching
The 4 sessions at CJC gave me
valuable teaching experiences. Overall, I enjoyed the interaction with the
students there. However, I felt that the sessions were a little too short for
my liking. It was akin to 4 speed dating sessions. The students there were
quite vocal and keen to learn and teaching them was a pleasurable experience.
It was a different type of teaching experience as compared to classroom
teaching since this was more like a mass tuition session.
Through this teaching experience, I
learnt how to meet students at their level, catering to their different needs,
balancing between the high ability students and those who needed more help.
With the higher ability students, I could explain concepts faster and they
would grasp it immediately, whereas the weaker students required more probing
and guidance.
One incident that struck a chord
with me was when a student said that their school was a stupid school so they
can’t win the better schools. I gently let the student know that no one was
stupid and all they had to do was to believe in themselves. That was my own
personal philosophy in life: I believe therefore I am. I used to be one of
these terrible students too, failing almost everything. But in university, I
picked myself up, worked hard, and saw the results. As I started having more
confidence, my results peaked too. Thus, I came to the realization that having
the confidence to achieve was crucial to any results. The confidence determines
our potential whereas our talent and abilities only help us fulfill our
potential. If we have no confidence in ourselves, we stymie our potential and
even though we could have the ability for so much more, the level that we see
our potential at restricts our ability to perform. This realization became a
very important aspect of my teaching philosophy and was also the chief reason
for me becoming a teacher. As a lousy student myself, I can relate to their
difficulties. And I want them to know, we are capable of so much more because I
have walked the same road myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment