10394 G633.8 Z2011126 The Application of Mind Mapping in the Teaching of Chemistry Book II in Senior Middle School
I
Abstract Abstract Mind mapping, which was invented by the British idealist Tony in 1960's, is a kind of efficient thinking tools to express one s idea. It is a tool that can help people to analyze and compose faster. Therefore, it has been widely used in various fields. Although it has been developed for many years overseas, in the China it is only at an early stage of development for more than that of a decade. In learning chemistry, China s students may understand but still lose it, which will make them lose interest and heart. That is because the students cannot well understand the construction frame of the concept and problems given. They just memorize the experiment knowledge and facts, without forming kind of framework of the knowledge, which make them fail at the major questions though winning the minor ones. It is far from enough for the students who just memorize to learn chemistry idea and concept. Positivily thinking, observation and analysis are required instead, to which mind mapping can be applied, because it can show the framework of the chemical knowledge and help the students understand and grasp the core of it. So we will study the effect of the mind mapping teaching in senior middle school chemistry Book II in the following three aspects: (1) To develop the students interest and attitude. (2) To find a method to improve the efficiency of chemistry teaching. (3) To motivate the student at positive learning and improve their ability of cooperation and study. In this paper, several methods of research are applied as follows: literature study method, experimental method, interview method, investigation method, observation method, statistical method and so on. The process will be practiced in a senori middle school in Zhangzhou, where comparison will be made between a parallel class and a common class to test the teaching effect of the mind mapping. The parallel class which is applied with mind mapping is the experimental one, and the common class which conventional teaching is a comparative one. The result shows that the experimental one is superior to the other one containing in the attitude, interest, score and ability in studying III
chemistry. Key words: mind mapping, senior middle school chemistry, instruction of chemistry in senior middle school, strategy of education IV
2 20 60 2 20 60 (Mind Mapping) V
1 3 1 2 2 2 1 VI
2 2 VII
2 3 4 3 2 4 2014 8 ~2015 9 2 2, (1) (2) (3) 1 2 VIII
IX
X
...I Abstract...III... V...XI...- 1 -...- 1 -...- 2 -...- 3 -...- 4-2...- 7 -...- 7 -...- 7 -...- 8 -...- 8-2...- 11 -...- 11 -...- 12 -...- 27 -...- 27 -...- 28 -...- 29 -...- 33 -...- 33 -...- 34 -...- 37-1...- 41-2...- 45 - XI
3...- 47 -...- 55 -...- 57 -...- 59 - XII
[3] 1-1 1-1 - 1 -
20 60 (Mind Mapping Mind Map) [6] 1-1 1-1 - 2 -
1 2 3 4-3 -
5 6 2 1 2 2 2 20 60 Tony Buzan 1999 BBC 1999 2005 2005-4 -
2006 2015 1-2 1-2 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 9 31 35 39 59 66 91 160 164 176 10 10 9 10 11 27 31 52 62 6 3 2 2 0 2 2 3 5 7 2 1-3 1-3 189 18 0 27-5 -
2 2 [4] [47] [1] 1-7 -
2-8 -
2-9 -
2 2 1 3 4 113 3 4 3 56 30 26 4 57 26 31 3 2 4 2 2014 8 ~12 2015 2 ~6 2015 7 3 2 1 2 3 4 1-11 -
2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 1-12 -
2 ; 2 3 4 2-1 2-1 - 13 -
2-2 2-2 1 2 1 2 3 4 2-3 2-4 - 14 -
2 2-3 2-4 5 3-15 -
2 2 1 2-5 2 2-6 3-16 -
2 2-5 2-6 2 1 2 3-17 -
75% 1 3ml 2CH 3 CH 2 OH + 2Na 2CH 3 CH 2 ONa + H 2 2 4 ml 50-18 -
2 2CH 3 CH 2 OH + O 2 2CH 3 CHO + 2H 2 O 2-7 2-7 2 2 2-19 -
? --- v A = C (A) / t mol/(l min) mol/(l s) A B A + 2B = 3C 2 min A 1 mol/l 0.8 mol/l B 1.2 mol/l 1 2 min B C 2 A 1 0.8 mol/l 0.6 mol/l 2 0.1 mol/ L min 1 6 ml 12% H 2 O 2 1-20 -
2 1 2 1 2 2 6ml4% H 2 O 2 3 4 3 3 5 6 5 5ml 4% H 2 O 2 6 5ml 12% H 2 O 2 0.2mol/LFeCl 3 2 3 4 6 2-8 - 21 -
2-8 3 6 2-9 2-10 - 22 -
2 2-9 2-10 - 23 -
4 1 A B 2 1-24 -
2 2 a 3 H 2 SO 4 4 b 2-12 2-12 - 25 -
30 Z 1 H 0 µ 1 = µ 2 H 0 µ 1 µ 2 ( ) 2 S n 4-1 S n 2 2 = S1 S2 n + n 4-1 1 2 S 1 S 2 1 2 n 1 n 2 1 2 t t Z Z 4-2 3 Z - 27 -
Z X X S 1 2 = 4-2 n X 1 X 2 1 2 S n 1 2 4 α 1 α = 0.05 Z 1.96 Z > 1.96 Z < 1.96 2 α = 0.01 Z 2.58 Z > 2.58 Z < 2.58 1 3 113 4-1 1 1 3 4-1 Z 3 56 63.8 10.17 4 57 63.0 10.84 3 56 69.55 11.89 4 57 64.05 10.24 0.404 1.96 2.63 2.58 Z < 1.96 Z > 2.58-28 -
2 2 113 113 113 2 113 113 113 Z 4-2 4-2 Z 3 56 20.81 8.32 4 57 20.34 8.91 3 56 31.55 8.09 4 57 22.64 9.81 0.29 1.96 5.27 2.58 Z < 1.96 Z > 2.58 4-1 4-2 - 29 -
4-1 14-30 -
3 3 2 3-31 -
- 32 -
2 3 4 2-33 -
- 34 -
- 35 -
[1]. [M]., 2000. [2],,. [M]., 2007. [3]. [M]., 2001. [4]. [J]., 2006. [5]. [M]., 2005. [6]. [M]., 2004. [7]. [J]., 2007(12). [8]. [J]., 2007(8). [9]. [J]., 2009. [10]. [M]., 2010. [11]. [J]., 2009, (8). [12]. ( )[M]. :, 2001. [13],. [J]., 2005(5). [14],. [J]., 2005 (10). [15]. [J]. 2010(8). [16],. [J]., 2004(8). [17],. [J]. ( ), 2009(4). [18]. [D]., 2007. [19]. [J]., 2000(4). [20]. [D]. - 37 -
, 2008. [21]. [J]., 2009(10). [22]. [J]., 2009(14). [23]. [J]., 2013(4). [24]. [J]., 2007(7). [25]. [D]., 2011. [26]. [M]., 2009. [27] Dorothy Gabel, The complexity of chemistry Implications for teaching. International handbook of science education [M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1998, 233-243. [28] Theodore Silver and the staff of the Princeton preview. Cracking the SAT II: Chemistry Subject Test [M]. New York, Princeton Preview Publishing, 2002. [29] Novak J. D.. Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching [J]. Journal of chemical Education, 1984, 61(7): 607-612. [30] Lewis C., Landale A.. The Extraordinary Reader [M]. Berkshire, UK: Vale House Press, 2007. [31] Prashnig B. The power of diversity: new ways of learning andteaching through learning styles [M]. Stafford, UK: NetworkEducational Press, 2004. [32] Wheeldon J.. Mapping mixed methods research: methods, measures, and meaning [J]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2010, 4(2): 87-102. [33] D' Antoni A. V., Zipp G. P., Olson V. G.. Interrater reliabilityof the mind map assessment rubric in a cohort of medical students[j]. BMC Medical Education, 2009, 9(19): 1-8. [34] Lloyd D., Boyd B., Exter K.. Mind mapping as an interactivetool for engaging complex geographical issues [J]. New ZealandGeographer, 2010, 66(3): 181 188. [35] Payne T., Turner E.. Dyslexia: A parents' and teachers' guide [M]. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1999. - 38 -
[36] Nesbit J. C., Adescope O. O.. Learning with concept andknowledge maps: A meta-analysis [J]. Review of Educational.Research, 2006(76): 413-448. [37] Mento A. J., Martinelli P., Jones R. M. Mind mapping inexecutive education: applications and outcomes [J]. Journal of Management Development, 1999, 18(4): 390-407. [38],. - [M]. :, 2004, 15. [39]. [M]., 2009. [40]. [M]. :, 2003. [41]. [M]. 2001. [42]. [M]., 2006. [43]. [J]., 2001(8) [44]. [J]., 2008(12). [45]. [J]. 2010.(4). [46],,. Word [J]., 2010(11). [47]. [M]., 2000. [48]. [D].. 2010. [49]. [M]. :, 2002. [50]. [M]., 2003. [51]. [M]., 2009. [52]. [J]., 2004(6). - 39 -
1 1 1 78 88 1 80 80 2 82 86 2 78 85 3 85 80 3 65 78 4 88 92 4 79 80 5 85 86 5 86 79 6 76 83 6 75 75 7 77 86 7 70 82 8 73 89 8 83 81 9 69 90 9 75 75 10 77 80 10 86 72 11 65 82 11 76 73 12 69 83 12 70 65 13 82 85 13 77 68 14 72 78 14 75 64 15 63 79 15 58 76 16 66 83 16 65 73 17 65 76 17 76 74 18 60 78 18 67 75 19 69 72 19 66 65 20 67 67 20 65 66 21 72 68 21 58 64 22 49 66 22 68 63 23 56 62 23 65 65-41 -
24 68 75 24 64 70 25 67 74 25 65 58 26 65 73 26 60 58 27 66 68 27 56 56 28 63 60 28 60 55 29 69 63 29 80 67 30 60 58 30 45 68 31 56 56 31 68 64 32 56 76 32 63 60 33 70 65 33 54 65 34 60 80 34 56 58 35 56 67 35 58 62 36 54 57 36 57 62 37 59 68 37 60 60 38 53 64 38 61 72 39 52 55 39 63 58 40 67 65 40 55 55 41 63 63 41 58 53 42 58 65 42 53 54 43 48 56 43 50 47 44 49 56 44 54 65 45 68 58 45 56 68 46 55 52 46 52 63 47 56 47 47 63 70 48 58 67 48 60 55 49 48 66 49 59 58 50 49 72 50 56 50 51 62 48 51 52 48 52 58 52 52 46 44-42 -
1 53 56 50 53 39 50 54 48 58 54 60 56 55 55 60 55 54 43 56 56 62 56 46 49 57 45 52-43 -
2 2 1? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14-45 -
15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 0-46 -
3 3 1 A B C D 2 A B C D A 8 12 C B CH 2 CH 2 C Cl D CH 4 4 A 2H 2 +O 2 =2H 2 O C CaCO 3 =CaO+CO 2 5 B NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H 2 O D Na 2 CO 3 +2HCl=2NaCl+H 2 O+CO 2 A Na Mg Al B HClO 4 H 2 SO 4 H 3 PO 4 C Na SiO 2 CO 2 D HCl H 2 S PH 3 6 1 A A C B D - 47 -
7 A B C D 8 1 mol 8 mol A B. C. D. 9 10 A B C D (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 11 A NaOH B H 2 SO 4 C Cu(OH) 2 D Na 2 CO 3 12 4NH 3 (g) 5O 2 (g) 4NO(g) 6H 2 O(g) A υ υ =0 B O 2 C 2υ NH 3 3υ H 2 O D x mol NO x mol NH 3 13 MnO 2 H 2 O 2 / A MnO 2 12%H 2 O 2 5ml 50 B MnO 2 4% H 2 O 2 5ml 50-48 -
3 C 12%H 2 O 2 5ml 50 D 4% H 2 O 2 5ml 20 14 SO 2 O 2 2 L 2 min 0.8 mol SO 3 O 2 1 A 0.05mol L 1 min 1 B 0.1 mol L 1 min 1 C 0.2mol L 1 min 1 D 0.4mol L 1 min 15 A B KMnO 4 C CH 4 Cl 2 D CCl 4 16 A B C D 17 A C 4 H 10 B C D (C H O 6 10 5 ) n 18 A B C D 19 (C 2 H 6 O) II I - 49 -
A B 1 mol 3 mol C 1 mol 1 g H 2 D 20 A B C D 21 COOH OH KMnO 4 NaOH A B C D 22 COCl 2 (g) Cl 2 (g) CO(g) 2.0 L 1.0 mol COCl 2 (g) t / s 0 2 4 6 8 n(cl 2 ) / mol 0 0.30 0.39 0.40 0.40 A Cl 2 0 2 s 2 4 s B 0 2s C 6s D COCl 2 60% - 50 -
3 23 1 D T 16 O 2 17 O 2 H 2 O H 2 O 2 CH 3 COOH HCOOCH 3 CH 4 CH 3 CH 2 CH 3 2 NaCl NaOH 3 101 kpa mol 444.8 kj 24 A J A D F G J B C E H I 1 A F 2 D 3 B C 4 E I X 5 F 66 X X 8 X 25 1-51 -
1 mol A 32.5 g B 32.5 g C l g H 2 D 1 mol H 2 2 X Y a NaCl X Y 26 I. (1) A.CH 3 CH 3 B.CH 3 CHCl 2 C.CH 3 CH 2 OH D.CH 3 CH 2 Br (2) A B II. 1 2 a - 52 -
3 3 H 2 SO 4 4 b 27 12 g 7.2 g H 2 O 8.96 L CO 2 60 1 2-53 -
- 55 -
- 57 -
- 59 -