Text
@iris-sunflower I’ll respond to your reblog of my post here, since my OP was already very long and I don’t want its notes to be cluttered:
1) Children and everyone having a right to public, accessible education is such an important value for me. Is youthlib against the idea of funding public schools?
I’m not The Single Valid Youthlib Representative(tm). There are many different youth liberationists who don’t necessarily agree with each other on every single point. I can only give my own opinion, which I believe is the most accurate interpretation of the principle of youth liberation: Of course I agree, and I acknowledge that public schools are currently underfunded and should have more financial support. Gatekeeping from education is oppressive.
It would put all minors at a disadvantage, and we should be improving children’s education so they have a fairer prospect for their future. Being literate, understanding math especially finance, etc.
I agree it’s a problem that so many children are unable to access any education in the first place. But I would caution against taking the “less educated = less successful” at face value. The issue isn’t that being less educated automatically, inherently means one will become disadvantaged, but that capitalism creates these disadvantages for uneducated people. It’s unfair that people who haven’t had a chance to go to/remain in school are also gatekept from jobs, resources, and respect later in life. Resolving the issue (re classism and adultism) involves making it possible for children to be able to go to school instead of being unable to access it, but it also means fighting for justice for children & adults who didn’t get to go, instead of just leaving them behind in the dust now that it’s too late or whatever. It’s sad that if someone can’t understand the (overcomplicated, very bullshit, should-not-be-existing-in-the-first-place) financial system capitalism has forced onto us, then they’ll be disadvantaged in life.
And, some children/minors/adults just can’t understand math or finance or learn literacy well in the first place, regardless of how good their teachers/educational materials/settings are. It is unfair to expect that they should, or treat them as lesser, or refuse to accommodate them. Everyone, regardless of capability, should be able to expect a good future for themself, and to have the resources to live securely.
And, formal schools (both public and private) are extremely adultist and violent to children. Does that mean homeschooling is the solution? No, because family homes are also extremely adultist and violent to children. I’m frustrated at a lot of the discourse I’ve seen, where survivors of violence from schools or violence from the home have tried to discuss our traumas, only to be dismissed and told that we should just suck it up and deal with the flaws of the institution because the alternative would be “worse.” Many people have experienced immense abuse and trauma from both schools and our families. I want to think of solutions beyond just trying to pick the lesser of two evils.
(Official) schools (in their current form, at least) aren’t particularly good at teaching in the first place. They don’t teach how to really understand the concepts of “math” so much as rote memorization and computation, for example. The way subjects are taught in schools focuses more on trying to train them into good capitalist workers, not help them develop life skills for themselves or learn things they actually want to and choose to learn themselves. Meanwhile a lot of potential educational materials (paywalled academic texts, informative books in general, politically unpopular info/arguments like honest analyses about abuse dynamics/what to do in more difficult situations, niche things they don’t really care about because they’re not profitable) and sources of education (i.e. people, places from the outside) are withheld from children because of the formalized schooling system which narrows what and how they can learn, and meanwhile tries to force students to learn whatever they don’t want and don’t need to learn, and is especially hell for disabled children/minors being forced to attend and being overloaded with work when they can’t handle that, plus all the higher likelihood of bullying and abuse from authority figures they can’t escape from.
So I believe youth liberationists, and leftists in general, should be focused on both improving access to education and ensuring that people who had not been able to access education or just genuinely don’t want to or cannot are not being punished for being uneducated either. Right to learn things doesn’t mean also being okay with forcing children to learn things (which is also a major problem right now). And grassroots education outside of formal schooling hooked up to the state/capitalist systems / the nuclear family home should also be a priority. Though it would help, “reform & improve public schools” is still not a solution to the fundamental problem of enforcing a divide between “learning” and “the rest of life” / “place to learn” and “anywhere else” / monopolizing good (or as good as possible) education in the hands of authorities.
We should be making schools better for children not losing their right to an education.
(I prefer to frame children’s rights discussions as something which centers their input and their efforts; should not just be a thing “we” pass down onto “them” on their behalf instead of them being directly involved in the process.)
(Note that nowhere in the entire article I reposted was there any claim that children should “lose their right to an education.”)
2) Does losing parental rights make parental abuse obsolete as a legal protection? Confused here.
That’s not what “right” means. A right you have is something you can do, not something you have to do. “Parental rights over their children” doesn’t mean parents are being made to care for or be nonabusive to their children; “parental rights” are the mechanisms which allow parents to abuse their children because their children are viewed as their property, or to force invasive medical procedures onto/withhold needed medical care from their children because they’re viewed as having a right to make their children’s decisions for them regardless of what the children themselves feel, or to decide what their child’s future must look like because of their “right to control” them. “Parental rights” means that outsiders are barred from housing an abused/neglected child because only the parents may choose where “their” children live.
On the other hand, parental obligations (or responsibilities, or duties) are a rather different concept. For example, every person has an obligation (or responsibility) to not abuse or otherwise violate other sentient beings. Everyone also has an obligation to not hoard essential resources they won’t use themselves while others are in desperate need but can’t access them—for example, (IMO) very rich people with control over their finances are obligated to redistribute their wealth downwards ASAP, and are committing ethical violations when they do not. As for obligations specific to parents: if they have children under their care who cannot leave/acquire that care elsewhere, they have a responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise provide for their children wrt essential resources to the best of their physical and financial capability.
Parents should face consequences for abusing children, which unfortunately will happen sometimes regardless of efforts to prevent crime. Some parents are just cruel.
I like to think of this question a bit differently. The issue here is that right now, if a parent has cruel beliefs/intentions, then abuse will happen, because they have near-unchallenged power to enact their will for cruelty. Consequences for abuse which has happened are important, of course, but I’m also interested in preventing abuse from happening in the first place, instead of just keeping up the system where kids have to roll the dice and if they land on a cruel parent then that’s just what they get and having a good parents just depends on their luck. I want to work towards a world where regardless of an ideological bigot/authoritarian’s personal desire for cruelty, they will be unable to act out the abuse they want, because they no longer have the power to do so unresisted. This is also why general social justice organizing (if it’s good) doesn’t focus primarily on reforming bigots, getting them to change their beliefs/intentions, but on reclaiming power and autonomy so that despite what the bigots might still believe, they can no longer make those beliefs matter to us as easily.
Leftists and anarchists in general are often told that we are too utopian and need to understand that “violence will always happen no matter how much you make social changes.” I dislike this framing; first of all, I’m not a doomer, and I do not want to say there certainly will always be violence, because I don’t think it is possible to guess that with 100% accuracy, and I like to leave room for a little hope in the world; second of all, it’s not really a relevant objection, because we’re not about gambling on the possibility of there being no abuse, but about taking steps to reduce abuse as much as we can and make it as hard as possible for abuse to happen.
But if parents aren’t “legally responsible,” are they not also going to be found liable for abusing their children?
I’m thinking about a certain Reddit post I read a few months ago. A woman was raising an infant with her (boyfriend? husband? not exactly sure which it was). She hadn’t wanted the child, and he had. She was slowly realizing that she just couldn’t bring herself to love the kid, and the childcare work was annoying and frustrating and exhausting her. Her bf/husband really liked the kid and was enthusiastic about taking care of them and nurturing them. A lot of commenters on that thread told her that she should leave them, because she’s not suited to be a parent for the child, as they grow up they’ll be able to tell that she’s just faking her emotions and actually dislikes them/doesn’t love them, so she should halt the toxic dynamic as early as possible. That stuck with me a lot—it would’ve been so helpful to a lot of kids if it was normalized for parents who don’t like a kid to be able to give them to better-suited, more loving caretakers who do want to have a kid, because many parents are just incompatible, just aren’t fit to parent, personality-wise or otherwise. Expanding the options for everyone to have healthy relationships and get the love and nurturing they need does not mean that neglectful parents of children stuck in their abusive household are not culpable for their harms (i.e. specifically withholding resources when they were needed). And, in general, abuse is wrong when done by anybody to anyone, legal parent or not. This doesn’t change that. And, I don’t really care about the legal system much in the first place because even with laws forbidding extended kinship networks they still don’t actually do a lot about parental neglect or abuse. I’m interested in more concrete questions like “how do we help neglected children acquire the resources/care they’ve been deprived of” or “how do we get abuse victims out; how do we minimize unwanted relationships and maximize wanted relationships; which cultural norms do we need to change to facilitate this.”
3) How would we ensure that children, particularly very young, are being well cared for - diapers, feedings, etc? Currently parents are completely abandoned by the social systems in place. I actually think a reformed/socialist service like cps (unsure of a better word) should be freely provided to all parents. Social workers or volunteers can make sure a child isn’t being ISOLATED which is the biggest factor for abuse. Neighbors may not even know abusive parents have a child and that’s terrifying.
Agreed, though I’d like to point out that this isn’t just something that can only be done by a specially appointed or paid professional group; this is something anyone can do, and especially people already close by. Like, checking up on your friends if it seems like something abusive is going on. Being that person for them if they’re stuck in an abusive home. Normalizing being more attentive to children near you socially, paying more attention to people around you in general, and lending a hand, and creating more interconnected communities which make it harder to isolate someone. It’s kind of hard to imagine given our current atomized hellscape but there are & have been societies in which families weren’t just sorted into single-unit disconnected households, and it was a lot easier to notice if something was off/hold each other accountable; also people fighting for this right now—whether children/minors using the Internet to finally befriend outsiders when they never could before, or having electronic devices they hide from their abusers, or meeting/talking to a friend in secret; or the teachers, healthcare workers, classmates, anyone else seeing them and opening the pathway for questions, help where there were no other options before, etc. & preventing isolation and exploitation wholesale means targeting the root of the problem (the nuclear family’s isolation, thru various political/economic forces)—which is exactly what the article was talking about.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Techniques for Studying Different Subjects
Before diving into study techniques, it's crucial to understand that different subjects require varying approaches. While math might require problem-solving, history would demand contextual understanding. Recognizing the inherent nature of the subject is the first step in tailoring your study methods. Now returning to graduate school to secure himself an advanced degree, Seth Warren will use many of these techniques himself.
youtube
Languages & Humanities
When studying languages or humanities, immersion is the key. Rather than rote memorization of vocabulary or facts, immerse yourself in the culture or context of what you're studying. Watch movies, read books, or even engage in conversations if it's a language. For humanities, such as history or literature, drawing connections between events or themes can provide a richer understanding. The idea is to live the subject, making the information part of your everyday life.
Sciences
Sciences like biology, chemistry, or physics often require a two-fold approach. First, ensure you have conceptual clarity. This might involve breaking down complex ideas into simpler components or using analogies. Once the concept is clear, practice is paramount. Whether it's solving equations in physics or drawing chemical structures in chemistry, repeated application cements the knowledge.
Mathematics
Mathematics is all about patterns and logic. Instead of attempting to memorize formulas, understand the underlying logic behind them. This not only makes it easier to remember but also to apply them in varying situations. Additionally, practice is non-negotiable in math. The more problems you solve, the better you get at identifying patterns and using shortcuts.
Arts & Social Sciences
Subjects like sociology, psychology, or even art benefit immensely from discussion and analysis. Engage in group discussions or write essays to explore different viewpoints. Analysing various perspectives deepens understanding and opens your mind to nuances you might have missed in a solo study session. It's not just about what you know, but how you interpret and apply that knowledge.
Practical Tips Across the Board
While specific techniques cater to particular subjects, some general practices can enhance your study experience across the board:
Summarization: After studying a topic, try to summarize it in your own words. This not only tests your understanding but also helps in retention.
Mind Maps: These are excellent tools for visual learners. They can be used to chart out ideas, connections, and even formulas.
Regular Breaks: The brain can only concentrate for specific periods. Taking regular breaks ensures you return to your study session refreshed and more focused.
Adopting a tailored approach to each subject can drastically improve the efficiency of your study sessions. By recognizing the unique demands of each discipline and applying specialized techniques, you're setting yourself up for academic success.
0 notes
Note
Your hashtags make it seem like you’re very passionate about your recent reblog about one story having a trope being fine versus the entire trope being bad.. I’d like to hear more about your opinion behind it if you wouldn’t mind sharing!
thanks anon! i suppose all my exclamation points were a bit of a give away. i should clarify perhaps that what i am passionate is less that specific topic than the general notion of statistics.
(this got real long and a bit meandering, but i will not apologize, because i think its fascinating)
we as humans are...really bad at statistics. honestly, thats being kind. we are terrible at understanding statistics. you see a weather forecast which says 20% chance of rain, and while you know, logically, that means there is some chance of rain, your brain basically reinterprets this to: It Will Not Rain. 20% is the same as zero percent. if it rains, then the probability was actually 100%, and the forecast was wrong. but actually, it was 20%, and some random winds blew just right and your campfire got drizzled on.
statistical literacy is wildly important for understanding large societal trends and also wildly undertaught. (i am particularly salty that a few years after i graduated my province removed statistics from the high school math curriculum. i love math, i really do, but while i think theres value in people knowing about calculus and the ways we can use it, most people wont have to actually use it themselves. everyone can benefit from understanding how to read statistics better. in our current society, its almost a critical survival skill)
(i also want to add a caveat which is that while i love statistics, statistics are also incredibly easy to lie with. no, seriously. this is part of the statistical literacy i am talking about. if you like reading academic articles, i recommend this one, which discusses how if you analyze the data differently, you can often get large variations in results. if the pdf is not free for download, the unpaywall extension will grab it for you)
(relatedly, this is why i am of the opinion that you should be careful of any statistic that is presented in only one way. This Medication Doubles Your Risk of Blood Clot! (the risk went from 1 in ten million to 2 in ten million))
so, statistics are important. statistics reveal a lot about society. but we dont experience life as statistics, we experience life as a series of events (or anecdotes). large numbers are not something that we actually evolved to understand very well. we process the world through stories and examples, and we have to learn to think carefully about numbers.
(even watch: i am about to use an anecdote to centre this discussion. i use it to place my point somewhere, because thinking about it in abstract is difficult to do without practice. but it is also falling prey to exactly the fallacy that i am talking about)
i was discussing last summer an incident in which a Black athlete tested positive for marijuana and was given a temporary suspension. she claimed this was a racist ban, and a bunch of discourse ensued. (please note: i am not interested in discussing the validity of her specific claim, which is why im not linking to a specific incident. this could apply to any number of similar examples, and others have likely done more in depth analyses of the particular event. i am using it as a rhetorical device to discuss bias and how it manifests, and am not interested in debating about this one incident. pretend it is a fictional example, if you wish.)
with all those caveats out of the way, here is why this is a difficult claim to make: in isolation, there is very little substance to it. there was a rule, which a person broke, and they received the standard consequence for it. its hard to argue bias when the narrative is so linear. especially if we assume the situation has no deeper narrative (as we know, often stories like this contain more blatant bigotry, while only the softest version makes the headline.) there is little to support the idea that this was a racist decision. moderates might see this and, without more context, think that its a lot of fuss kicked up about nothing. because on its own, it is.
what makes this a racist incident isnt (necessarily) that it was a specific Black athlete that was hit with the suspension. its that there is a trend wherein Black athletes are more likely to be tested, and more likely to be punished rather than dealt a warning.
which returns me to my point, which is the statistics. literally nobody involved in this specific suspension had to be individually racist, or have racist motivations. hell, this individual suspension could be totally ideologically squeaky clean of racism. but on average, in the system, certain people are being hit harder than others, and that indicates racism in the system. but its hard to tease out that racism because every individual instance of it seems kinda wishy-washy. the trend is only obvious in aggregate, and we are, as ive said, very bad at understanding the abstract statistic, especially when we can look at an individual event and label it (we think) clearly.
we focus on the individual rather than the aggregate, which is a natural, and very human response. rather than address the racism in the system, the discussion becomes primarily about whether the people enforcing the ban are racist individuals.
(i emphasize primarily because this is still a good question to ask; you want to make sure there arent any explicit racists in the system! but it should not be the only question you ask, because there are systemic factors that could produce this bias without a single outright racist person involved)
a lot of systemic bias works under this kind of...plausible deniability schema. this athlete broke a known rule and faced consequences. how is that racism? that femme gay man keeps getting rejected from jobs, but there are lots of other qualified candidates, and its not like resumes can really be objectively classified as 'better' or 'worse.' some people will rank resumes differently. maybe the other candidates were just more qualified!
but when there is an average of femme gay men having trouble breaking into a profession, or of trans women struggling to find housing, or or or or...then it reveals something about the structure of the society that is happening in. the individual incident may or or may not be a manifestation of bias, but the totality is. it is even possible the hiring manager who has rejected all these applications is, themself, unaware that they are subconsciously judging these men as being less qualified based on their voice and bearing.
ie. it is possible to perpetuate bias without any conscious malice. and it is very frustrating to our brains, which like stories, when we cant find a clear villain and hero. when its just an evil hiring manager, the situation is comprehensible. when its a bunch of neutral parties that all have the same cultural framework influencing their decisions subtly in a negative direction, its harder to process. and also a lot harder to fix. being able to point to an Evil Hiring Manager is nice because we can boot that person, and the problem is fixed. it feels good to be able to fix a problem, and systemic factors are way harder to actually address.
which is also why its sometimes very hard to criticize things like media trends (yeah, we're looping back to that original post now, im getting there) because we are so much better at processing individual stories than statistics. the problem is often not a specific narrative--ie. a gay character dying in a story--but an overarching trend--ie. all gay characters in stories die. pick one single story out of this trend, and you learn nothing. it may be that in isolation, this story is moving and beautiful, that the death was narratively necessary, that it spoke to a lot of people. individually, the story could be a net good. and so when the trend is criticized, those who enjoyed the individual story, rather than have a more nuanced discussion about what the trend reveals about how our society treats queer people, and how we subconsciously think about queer narratives, people jump to defend the one story in isolation. the point of criticizing a trend is not (or should not be, or generally should not be) to say: This Story Can Never Be Told. it should be to ask: why is this the only story being told?
the question when looking at a trend, or a statistic, should be: what does this imply about what is going on under the surface. and well meaning people who are anti-bigotry can fall prey to whats under the surface. hell, people who are members of the groups in question can fall prey to whats under the surface. i'll give a fandom example (since i do fandom shit on this blog).
now most people who are in fandom would probably agree that trying to label one member of a queer couple the 'man' and one member the 'woman' is stupid. theyre both the same gender! thats the point!
but when you think of your favourite blorbos...you know, right? even if you vehemently disagree, even if you think that way of looking at relationships is stupid...you know. you know which one is on average treated within the fandom as taking each role. even by people who are vocal allies, or who are queer themselves. maybe your instinct is to push this knowledge away from you, to claim you only know it because other people are biased, but you do know it. you are aware of the general trend. we cant help it. we are part of this society, so we know about it, even if we dislike it. and even if we dislike it, we can still accidentally absorb it.
heres a metric i find interesting: when constructing an au of a queer couple based on a het story, which member of the queer couple gets the womans role, and which gets the mans?
even the most progressive het stories still, on some level, have absorbed the cultural context we live in. most stories, not being the Most progressive, will be saturated with many, many small gender stereotypes. it will influence what careers the characters have, what type of choices they make in the narrative, how they interact with the other characters, etc. its not always blatant, but its often an undercurrent (and sometimes it really is blatant).
one would expect, then, that with a queer couple, sometimes it will make sense to mold the het story one way, sometimes the other. but if i look at my own fics that are based on het couples...both of them i have the same character taking the mans role and the other the womans. and i know that falls in line with who fandom as an average treats as the 'woman' in the relationship and the 'man'.
now, two fics does not a significant dataset make, but i also have no evidence that had i not started to think about this trend, i would not have continued to accidentally follow it. and i would wager if you did a survey of all fics in a fandom, you would not find a vaguely 50/50 split, with half the time one character getting one role and half the other, but some kind of skew in the expected direction.
what does this mean? i would hope, in reading either of the fics ive just referenced, few people would walk out saying 'that was homophobic.' the stories themselves are almost irrelevant to the discussion. but it does serve as a probe. somewhere, in the bottom of my mind, whether i want it there or not, gender and sexuality stereotypes are still fermenting quietly. growing like long-lived weeds in places they were planted when i was so small i dont even remember it. tiny seeds planted daily by subtle interactions with the world. being aware of this makes me a little more able to prune back some of these weeds. to interrogate my own beliefs and counter them. and it came not out of a specific homophobic statement or act that i made, but a statistical trend that would be too subtle to notice in isolation. if i look at each story on its own, i can offer very good explanations for why i made the choices i did. but somehow i still managed to blindly find my way into a stereotypical cave.
i use myself as an example because i dont want to point fingers and say: These People are being bad. its not a valuable way to approach narrative analysis. if you are looking at broad media trends, the goal is to understand what societal beliefs and motivations might lead to that trend, even if that wasnt the specific motivation of an individual creator who happens to fall under the trend. every single creator may, individually, have a very good reason for the choices they made. but the fact that we all made the same choice tells us something. and maybe what it tells us is its time to explore some alternative choices.
no individual story needs to be at fault. but it is very hard to separate the statistics from the individual, because our brains are literally programmed to focus on the personal. a story does not have to be bad to be part of a trend. pieces of a trend can be good even if the trend itself is bad.
which is a very long winded way of saying that bias is statistical, and people are bad at statistics. when apes started to walk around and start talking, there was no evolutionary pressure into understanding exactly what a percentage means. it takes conscious effort to not take statistics personally. your favourite story doesnt need to be monstrous to spend time thinking about why a popular trope it happens to contain might be rooted in something you dont believe in.
i will leave you with one final bit of wisdom when it comes to statistics: be skeptical of any statement containing absolutes.
yes, even this one
#discourse#racism tw#homophobia tw#transphobia tw#statistics#i love math and i really wish it was taught better#so many people would benefit from a solid understanding of numbers#but school focuses on rote memorization instead of interpretation#and it does us a major disservice#thanks for the chance to ramble anon#hopefully you dont regret asking haha#anons#asks
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Challenges That Students Face in Learning Chemistry
Chemistry is not an easy subject to learn by any means. If there is one thing that people who have to deal with in high school and college can agree on, it is this. However, what makes it so difficult? What exactly are the difficulties it poses?
What is it about this subject that requires so much time and effort?
We will attempt to answer these questions in this essay. So, what are the primary challenges that one should be prepared to face when studying chemistry?
Let's see what happens!
Lectures- an age-old practice.
Teaching through lectures is still widely employed at all educational levels. However, it is not so effective for learning new information.
Even if a student is tremendously interested in the material, the student plays a passive role and is not actively interpreting.
On average, it is reported that a student only registers 10 percent of the lecture topic. This method of learning is passive, focuses on memorization and rote learning.
We have additional challenges when it comes to a field as reliant on complicated vocabulary and specialized language to convey its concepts as chemistry.
When you hear a phrase (even if it is known) instead of seeing it put on paper, you may fail to identify it. Sometimes you don't know the vocabulary and hence can't understand anything that relies on it. You may mishear anything the professor speaks and proceed based on incorrect assumptions. All of this makes the ubiquity of lectures an incredibly daunting task when it comes to chemistry.
Chemistry is unrelatable.
History, geography, biology, and physics can all be perceived, yet chemistry may be somewhat abstract. So, similar to math, you may be wondering why chemistry is essential to study.
The abstract nature of chemical reactions and phrases from the ordinary language with diverse meanings make them challenging.
To make it more relatable, seek assistance from a tutor or an online instructor. Both can help you grasp the subject, but an online instructor has the benefit of providing more customized attention. A tutor can help you link the material to real-world occurrences using corollaries and analogies. For example, discussing how acidic rainfall damages marble monuments might help illustrate the action of hydrochloric acid on calcium chloride.
Chemistry is boring.
It is common for the very first chemistry classes to appear uninteresting. However, pupils tend to find the material dull and more tedious with time. This is especially true for students who find little benefit in sitting and reading pages and pages of intricate and difficult-to-understand material.
Active learning strategies are the best way to tackle this situation. The goal of education is not memorization. Especially when it comes to science disciplines that are more about comprehension.The best way to learn chemistry is by employing a variety of methods. They include seeing actual implementations of concepts in the laboratory or the real world, learning via live models and simulations.
Issues with numerical calculations
Chemistry necessitates a great degree of problem-solving.
It requires a certain level of proficiency in math, especially algebra and geometry. Some more advanced chemistry degrees would also need a working grasp of Calculus. As a result, issues with math might lead to worse marks in chemistry.
Spend some additional time working on the math problems.It might be challenging to determine which math topic is necessary to arrive at chemical solutions unless you are well-versed in it. As a result, it is essential to consult with a chemistry tutor to determine where you are struggling and what you can do to improve.
Struggling to learn new vocabulary
Are you tired of remembering the names of numerous elements, compounds, formulae, chemical processes, and so on? You are not at all alone! Many chemistry students struggle with understanding, interpreting, and articulating these fundamentals.
You may apply particular ways to learn faster and more efficiently.Examples include using mnemonics, referring to formula sheets, and co-creating interesting ways to memorize with friends and instructors. Furthermore, specific topics, such as organic chemistry, are best comprehended by 3-D models.
Vast curriculum.
The chemistry curriculum might appear to be broad and never-ending. This frequently overwhelms pupils. An incomplete curriculum is likely to lead to dissatisfaction and self-doubt.
Furthermore, many topics overlap often. As a result, you may fail to make sense of the subject unless you study the fundamentals followed by a slew of advanced topics.
Needs more time.
You may have heard that the best amount of time to spend on work is 45 to 60 minutes. Beyond that, you become distracted, and your effectiveness plummets. Trying to study chemistry in a short amount of time, on the other hand, does not work very well. Long periods of unbroken intense attention are highly beneficial to this practice.
This implies that if you cannot focus on a single task for an extended period (90 minutes to 3 hours), you will struggle to make substantial progress in chemistry.
Diverse backgrounds.
Students don't need to mandatorily study chemistry in high school. Even if they did, some students might have far more knowledge and expertise in this subject than others, particularly in practical and laboratory work. Therefore students studying chemistry in the same class frequently are on different levels. This means that students require different levels of attention, study plans, and effort to achieve the same result. Indeed, this is a daunting task for students with no prior background in chemistry.
If you find yourself in this scenario, remember that tutoring can assist you with a wide range of chemistry and related academic projects.It might be what you need to catch up with your classmates. If you are looking for personal and professional Chemistry tutoring online in one-on-one sessions, then look no further because Miles Smart Tutoring has the highly trained tutors that you need. Miles Smart Tutoring can provide quality online organic chemistry tutoring starting from basic to advanced concepts. While we employ various methodologies and strategies, we emphasize the Socratic method as it helps students think through the logic of math and science to find the answers. This teaching method has future ramifications as it carries over to future classes and helps develop self-reliance amongst students. Look no more, book a consultation with us.
0 notes