Why is Chemistry difficult?

Many students at all levels struggle to learn chemistry, but are often unsuccessful.
Discovering the reasons has been the target of many studies. One possible answer that but are often
unsuccessful. Discovering the reasons has been the target of many studies. One possible answer that is
beginning to emerge is that many students are not con-been the target of many studies. One possible
answer that is beginning to emerge is that many students are not constructing appropriate
understandings of fundamental (Treagust, Duit, & Nieswandt, 2000)

In this study we discussed with students their views on abstract quantum concepts. We
focused on the ideas they expressed about the theoretical descriptions of non-observable entities and the
connections they made between non-observables and reality.

Because chemistry topics are generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a
difficult subject for many students. Chemistry curricula commonly incorporate many abstract concepts,
which are central to further learning in both chemistry and other sciences (Taber, 2002). These abstract
concepts are important because further chemistry/science concepts or theories cannot be easily
understood if these underpinning concepts are not sufficiently grasped by the student (Zoller, 1990;
Nakhleh, 1992; Ayas & Demirbaş, 1997; Coll & Treagust, 2001a; Nicoll, 2001). Sirhan, 2007

The abstract nature of chemistry along with other content learning difficulties (e.g. the mathematical
nature of much chemistry) means that chemistry classes require a high-level skill set (Fensham, 1988;
Zoller, 1990; Taber, 2002) ibid

Chemistry is often regarded as a difficult subject, an observation that sometimes repels learners from
continuing with studies in chemistry.

Of course, chemistry is one of the most important branches of science and has been regarded as a
difficult subject for young students by chemistry teachers, researchers, and educators. Although the
reasons for this vary from the abstract nature of many chemical concepts to the difficulty of the
language of chemistry (Ayas and Demirba¸ s, 1997), there are two major reasons for students having
difficulties in these areas; firstly, the topics are very abstract (Ben-Zvi et al., 1988), and secondly, words
from everyday language are used but with different meanings (Bergquist and Heikkinen, 1990). Because
students’ misconceptions in school sciences at all levels constitute a major problem of concern to
science educators, scientist–researchers, teachers, and students (Johnstone and Kellett, 1980;
Nussbaum, 1981), the identification of the students’ understandings and misconceptions have been the
goal of many of the studies carried out over the last years.
Their study revealed that only a few students attained the target level of understanding, and
suggested the existence of conceptual barriers to the learning of atomic structure.

As has been pointed out in many studies, because of the abstract nature of the sub-micro world of
atoms, students have difficulty understanding these concepts (Harrison & Treagust, 1996)

However, numerous studies have highlighted learning difficulties and misconceptions relating to
atomic structure and the particulate nature of matter in these grade levels. In addition, there has been much
criticism and many unanswered questions regarding how best to teach atomic/ molecular structure for students in
these or higher grade levels (Bent, 1984; Berry, 1986; Gillespie, 1991; Hawkes, 1992; Shiland, 1995; Tsaparlis, 1997,
2002).

About thirty years ago a number of studies described the problems of language in the learning of science
(Johnstone & Cassels, 1978; Cassels & Johnstone, 1983; Byrne, Johnstone & Pope, 1994). Johnstone and
Cassels (1978) found that many low exam marks in science subjects were due to a fail- ure to understand
the language of the questions. In some cases altering only one word made a difference in the result. “The
negative presentation of a question sometimes has the effect of a ‘double think’ and if by chance two
negatives stray into a question, even the strongest candidate quails” (John- stone & Cassels, 1978, p. 166).

Why