chemiftry for kid1
RICHARD SEINER University of Utah Salt Lake City. UT 84112
Chemistry Laboratory Program for Gifted Elementary School Children Robert E. Howard University of Tulsa. Tulsa, OK 74104 Susan Barnes and Patricia Hollingsworth University School for Gifted Students, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104 For the nast several vears there has been a -growing - interest in bringing hands-on chemistry experiments to elementarv aee children (1).Well-planned and -managed experimeitscan have a strong influence on children of thidage, ~articularlvamone the gifted, who seem especially stimulatkd by the new conceptsand active style oflearning. Several groups of chemists and educators have developed programs for gifted students in the elementary grades (2-7). These programs often take the form of valuable summer enrichment (=) or short introductorv hboratorv Droerams (6. The university of Tulsa chemistry ~ e ~ a r t " i e n tcon$&in tion with the Universitv School for Gifted Children has developed a year-long laboratory program that functions as a science course for eifted third. fourth. and fifth graders. The program makesuse of many freq"ently used'experiments (7) for elementary age students hut also includes some more sophisticated experiments adopted from Chemical Demonstrations by Summerlin and Ealy (8). The year-long program was initiated with a pilot group of 15 third, fourth, and fifth graders. The seven boys and eight girls ranged in age from 8 to 11 and had high scores on standardized tests. The chemistry program was held in a d standard chemical eeneral chemistrv lab e a u i ~ ~ ewith benches, sinks, add fume lion Synthesis of Rubber Synthesis d Nylon Photoreduction and Blueprints me Laser (D) Chemiluminescenceof Luminol
' ( 0 )indicates he sxperimem was a demonstration. 'References sre to ms experiment number hom ChemI~~lDe-@alims 4, w me page number hom SlnWls ChwnisnylSC) (ref 7). ~wiwtesaelk by ~anetHaggetty of me GwosciOepamnent.
CD, $73
SC, p 13
SG, P 20
SC, p 16 SC, p 25
CD, $17 CD, $18
CD. X29
CD. $26 CD, $27 CD. $43 CD. $48
CD. X52
W. %80 CD. $78 CD. $72 CD. $86 CD. X87 (CD) (ref
cm
tions. The Chemical Demonstrations experiments were es~eciallvhelnful here. Some of the experiments involved heat, equipment, and chemicals not frequently used by elementarv-aee students. Safetv with these labs was a maior concerd. w e impressed the students with the need t o b e saftey conscious, provided only limited quantities of reagents, kept a special eye on hot objects, and required the students to remain seated on stools and to wear safety goggles during the lab. Aside from a few dropped beakers and a minor finger burn, the labs progressed without major incidents. Glass bendine and flame tests. the students' first introduction to ener-gy, allowed them to use a Bunsen burner examine a burner flame, and see characteristic flame colors of several elements. la& bending, which we envisioned as heating and bending a glass rod, grew more involved when some of the rods melted. Students asked if it was possible to rejoin them (with practice it was) and whether several could be stuck together (they could). By the end of the hour, several children had created "sculptures", of varying artistic quality, but solidly held together. Several Chemical Demonstrations experiments done in
-
~
Volume 66
Number 6 June 1989
~~~
513
weeks 12 and 13 made the tie hetween heat and reactions. The Medicine Cabinet Kinetics experiment, in which the students timed how long Alka Seltzer took to dissolve in hot and cold water, was particularly useful. With each group determinine times. the students collected a hodv of numeric data. We t z k e d about sources of error and inGoduced the idea of an averaee in an intuitive wav " hv " lookine a t the data along a number line.
-
.
The exoeriments in weeks 15 and 16 referenced earlier work done withmixtures, rocks, analysis, and the electron microscooe. E n e r-" w in the form of heat was used to separate a mixture of food coloring and water, and energy in the form of X-rays t o analyze igneous rocks in the microprohe. ~
~~
T h e final four weeks were devoted t o chemicd reactions. The reaction of malonic acid, potassium hromate, and manganese sulfate chances from brown to clear in regular oscillations which the students could time. Questionsarose about whether the oscillation rate changes with reactant amounts (it appears to) and the rate of stirring (yes, to the surprise of the instructors). Synthesis of polysulfide rubber produced a strong smell even though i t was performed in fume hoods, and required close supervision to make sure .the reflux temnerature did not exceed 80 "C. Nevertheless, the students' products, which could he rolled into halls and bounced on the table. were a verv effective wav to demonstrate how useful materials are p;oduced by ch&nistry. Strands of nylon thread, made i n a relatively simplesynthesis reaction the next week, reinforced this. The findweek, on light and reactions, included a photoreduction done with sunlight (only partially successfd on amostly cloudy day), a lookat a laser, and the luminol chemiluminescence-perhaps the favorite experiment of the semester. Each student keot a laboratow notebook in which he or she recorded results and ohservkions. We encouraged the students to describe what they did and to draw pictures of the experiment. Drawing was particularly useful for the vouneer students and added considerably to their enjoyL e n t o f the activities. From the outset. safetv was a mime concern. Durinz the first period, we demonstrated the lab safety equipmentand reminded students about its availahilitv during the year. All the students and instructors wore safety glass& a t i l l times, fume hoods were used when vapors were produced, and students washed hands as an end-of-the-lab ritual. Over the course of the year, classroom management more than the level of the experiment proved to he-the key to conducting safe, controlled lahs with elementary age children.
514
Journal of Chemical Education
Results Even though the small size of the trial moup allowed only qualitative evaluations, there are numerous indications thar the program was successful. The children clearly enjoyed the exp&e&e. I t was the favorite class of many, and three now want t o he chemists. As the year progressed the students become more confident in multistep procedures, and their vocahularies developed so that i t was possible to talk in terms of beakers and flasks. or solutions and mixtures. with the distinction clear. l)eve1opment was also evident in the students' lab notehooks. Evaluation at the end of the semester showed that not only had the students' vocabularies mown, hut that the auestionsand observations recorded had become more numerous and more sophisticated. The combination of different lab sources generally worked well. The traditional elementary school procedures, used for the first few weeks, provided a colorful, physical introduction to simple chemistry concepts and allowed the students to learn the importance of following procedures. And [he exoeriments from Chemical Demonstrations furnished an exciting way to introduce chemistry not usually seen by elementary school students. In future programs we plan to jntroduce experiments to replace the geology lecture (week 6) and the electron microscooe and microorohe lahs (weeks 11 and 16). ~lthou~hsuccessful, the lecture failed to produce t h e "hands-on" eniovment of the other activities, and the electron microscope iahs have proven difficult toschedule on a remlar basis. In their place we plan to include several experiments, like fermentaiion of a sugar solution by yeast, which illustrate basic chemistry in a biological netting. Probably the most important ingredient in the s u i e s s of the nroeram was the active involvement of the students. The hands-on nature of the experiments-each child did some manioulations in almost everv lah-was critical. The auestion-irediction format for transmitting information-also was vew valuable. The students liked to do their own experiments much more than the set procedures. With occasional suggestions from the teachers, they were able to vary the experiment to test their predictions or answer their questions. &
Literature Clted 1. Tb. National Scicna Board commiesion on Premuege mueation in Mathematiea. Science, and Technolgy.Educocing Americans for the 21,b Century: US. Government Printing Ofim: Waahingtrm. DC, 1983. 2. Ciachino. 0.0J. Chem.Educ. 1984.M. 74S744. . L.IIChem.Educ. 1984,61,71C7B. 3. Schreek, J.0.;Bctta, G. T.; James, M 4. G a b d D. J. Chom. Educ. 1985.62.702-704. o.L. J. chem.~dur. i98S.65,~~~. 5. c&.. 6. Orem, T. 0.;G w o , C. B.J. Chem. Educ. 1987,M,53753% 7. Kellerman. E. R Simple CheMILv;Milliken: Sr Louia, 1985. 8. Summcrlin, L. R.;Ealy. J. L.,Jr. Chomicol Demo~tmtians.American Chsmieal Society: Washinston. DC, 1985. 9. '"TalentActivity Pseket". Mobile County Public Schaak Mobile,AL, 1974
