.png)
.png)
Hardest Chemistry Topics for Students (Teacher Survey Results + Teaching Strategies)
- Androy Bruney
- 3 hours ago
- 7 min read
If you’ve taught chemistry for any length of time, you probably don’t need a survey to tell you where students struggle.
You can feel it.
It’s in the pause before they start a problem.
The hesitation halfway through.
The quiet “Is this right?” before they move on.
The moaning and groaning when you start handing out the worksheet...
Still, I wanted to step outside my own classroom and ask:
What are other chemistry teachers seeing right now?
So I ran a short survey asking mostly high school chemistry and physical science teachers about:
The hardest chemistry topics for students
The biggest challenges they face when teaching
and the kinds of resources they wish they had
The responses were thoughtful, practical, and—perhaps most interesting—remarkably consistent.
But what stood out wasn’t just which topics came up.
It was what those topics—and the responses around them—have in common.
Maybe this will change in a year or two, but at the time of writing this blog post, this is what I found:
The Hardest Chemistry Topics for Students
Here’s what teachers reported most frequently:
At first glance, this is exactly what most of us would expect.
But look a little closer.
These topics all require students to:
work through multiple steps
connect math and chemistry
reason through abstract quantities
and keep track of relationships they cannot easily see
That tells us something important:
It’s Not Just What Students Don’t Know—It’s How They Experience the Work
One pattern came through clearly—both in the survey and in my own classroom.
Students can often carry out the steps.
They’ll substitute values into formulas, move through calculations, and arrive at an answer that is technically correct.
On the surface, it can look like understanding is there.
But when you pause and look a little closer, something feels off.
The Gap Between Procedures and Conceptual Understanding
Students can balance an equation—making sure the number of atoms matches on both sides—but if you ask why that matters, the explanation is often thin or uncertain.
The idea of conservation of mass hasn’t fully settled; it’s something they’ve applied, not something they’ve internalized.
The same thing happens with the mole.
Students can calculate it, convert it, use it in a problem—but many are still working with a quantity they don’t truly understand.
A mole isn’t something they can see or easily picture, and the idea that molar mass represents an unimaginably large number of particles doesn’t yet feel real to them.
So they proceed, but cautiously.
You see it in the way they work:
checking each step for reassurance
hesitating before moving forward, even when they’re on the right track
leaning on memorized procedures because they don’t yet trust their reasoning
There’s a kind of uncertainty underneath the process.
Why Small Changes in a Problem Cause Students to Get Stuck
As long as the problem looks familiar—same structure, same sequence of steps—students can often manage. But the moment the problem shifts slightly, everything starts to unravel.
A number is presented in a different way.
The setup isn’t as obvious.
The path forward isn’t immediately recognizable.
Suddenly, they’re unsure where to begin.
Because what they’ve learned isn’t a flexible understanding—it’s a sequence. And when that sequence is disrupted, even slightly, the sense of control disappears.
Because even when students arrive at the correct answer, the path they took doesn’t always feel secure or meaningful. The work becomes something to get through rather than something they understand.
In many cases, students aren’t struggling because they can’t do the chemistry.
They’re struggling because they’re being asked to operate within a system they don’t fully trust yet—and don’t quite see the logic behind.
The Real Challenges Chemistry Teachers Are Facing
If the previous section points to how students experience the work, the survey responses add another layer: the conditions we’re teaching in shape that experience just as much.
The challenge isn’t only the content.
It’s everything surrounding it.
Here were the most commonly reported challenges:
Managing different learning abilities (27.4%)
Students struggling with math skills (22%)
AI and academic integrity concerns (16.4%)
Keeping students engaged (16.4%)
At first glance, these look like separate issues—things you might address one at a time.
But in practice, they rarely show up on their own.
A student who is unsure of basic math is already approaching a problem with hesitation. That hesitation often leads them to rely on memorized steps rather than reasoning.
Now place that student in a classroom where ability levels vary widely.
Some students are ready to move on. Others are still trying to make sense of the starting point. Pacing becomes less about progression and more about compromise.
And all of this is happening within very real constraints.
For example, one teacher described trying to run labs within a schedule where:
That kind of constraint changes what’s even possible in a lesson.
In that kind of time frame, it’s not just difficult to run a meaningful lab. It changes how you plan entirely.
You start asking different questions:
What can realistically be done well in this time?
What needs to be simplified or removed?
What will actually move student understanding forward?
Add to that:
limited lab resources or equipment
gaps in prior knowledge from earlier grades
varying levels of student motivation
and increasing concerns around AI use and academic integrity
…and the picture becomes more complete.
We’re not just teaching topics like stoichiometry or the mole.
We’re trying to support students in developing abstract, multi-step reasoning in environments where:
time is constrained
readiness is uneven
and students are often searching for the quickest way through the work
Which brings us back to the same underlying question—but now with more context:
How do we design learning experiences that still hold up under these conditions?
What Chemistry Teachers Are Actually Asking For
One of the most revealing parts of the survey wasn’t the topics—it was what teachers said they needed.
Because when you read through the responses, a pattern starts to emerge.
Teachers aren’t asking for more activities.
They’re asking for resources that actually work in real classrooms.
Some responses were very practical:
“something that doesn’t require tons of editing”
“give me multiple versions of tests”
“resources that fit different formats like slides or Google Forms”
This isn’t simply about convenience.
It’s about time—and more importantly, about usability.
Teachers are looking for materials they can pick up and use immediately, without having to reshape them to fit their schedule, their students, or their classroom constraints.
But as I read further, it became clear that the need goes beyond practicality.
Several responses pointed toward something deeper: the need for coherence across an entire lesson, not just isolated activities.
Not a worksheet here, a lab there—but something that actually holds together.
A lesson with a clear starting point, a progression, and a sense of direction.
And then there were responses that shifted the focus entirely—from what we give students, to how students think.
One response, in particular, stood out for the level of detail:
That kind of response is worth paying attention to.
Because it reflects something we often see but don’t always name clearly.
Students don’t just need more opportunities to practice.
They need support in understanding the structure of what they’re doing—how each step connects, and how to make decisions when the problem doesn’t look exactly the same.
Other responses echoed this in different ways:
interactive, student-friendly practice
real-life connections that build on prior knowledge
labs that are engaging, but still realistic to set up within a limited time
All of these point in the same direction.
Teachers are trying to bridge the gap between procedure and understanding—between students completing work and students actually making sense of it.
At the same time, they’re doing this within very real constraints.
Time is limited.
Class periods are short.
Resources are not always ideal.
So when you step back and look at the full picture, a clearer pattern begins to emerge:
What This Looks Like in Practice
If students struggle because the work feels abstract, procedural, and disconnected, then simply giving them more practice won’t solve the problem.
They need something more stable to work from.
structure they can follow
clarity around what each step represents
and opportunities to make decisions—not just carry out instructions
In my own classroom, this has meant rethinking how I introduce topics like the mole concept and stoichiometry.
Instead of presenting them as a sequence of steps, I treat them as a system built on relationships—particularly between units.
Dimensional analysis becomes less of a technique to apply and more of a way to make sense of what’s happening.
If you’re interested, I’ve written more about how this plays out in practice here:
Supporting Students Through the Process
One shift that has made a noticeable difference is giving students a way to build the setup before they ever solve it.
Not just writing it out—but constructing it.
Using visual or physical structures—like manipulatives—gives students something to work with while they’re still figuring things out.
It allows them to:
see how quantities relate to each other
test their thinking before committing to a solution
and develop a sense of why a particular setup makes sense
This is especially useful in the early stages, when the process still feels unfamiliar.
For teachers who want something ready to use, I’ve put together a version of this approach here:
Want to Add Your Perspective?
Although the giveaway has now closed, I’m still collecting responses from chemistry teachers.
If you’d like to share your experience, you can take the short survey here:
It takes about 2–3 minutes, and your responses help shape future resources and teaching strategies.
Final Thought
Reading through these responses felt very familiar.
None of it was surprising—but seeing it all laid out made one thing really clear:
We’re all dealing with the same patterns.
The same topics.
The same sticking points.
The same tension between “they can follow the steps” and “they don’t really get it yet.”
And at the same time, we’re trying to make it work with limited time, mixed ability levels, and everything else that comes with a real classroom.
So if this felt familiar to you, you’re definitely not alone in it.
I’d love to hear—what’s been the hardest part of teaching chemistry for you lately? And have you found anything that’s made things even a little easier?
