c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 9
Teachers’ Opinions about the Effect of Chemistry 
Demonstrations on Students’ Interest and Chemistry 
Knowledge 
Luka Vinko*
1
, Seamus Delaney
2
 and Iztok Devetak
3
 
• Chemistry is an experimental discipline that uses experimentation as 
one of its most important research methods. Laboratory work and other 
practical work are therefore also essential in chemistry lessons. Chem -
istry demonstrations are used by teachers as an educational approach 
that can increase students’ interest in chemistry and motivate them to 
learn chemical concepts with understanding. However, if the students 
are actively involved in the chemistry demonstration, it can be just as 
effective as or even more effective than students’ learning through ex -
periments. The purpose of this research is to examine teachers’ opinions 
about the impact of chemistry demonstrations on students’ interest and 
chemistry knowledge. Based on a quantitative research approach, 81 pri -
mary and secondary school teachers from different regions of Slovenia 
participated in this study. Participating teachers completed an online 
questionnaire on their perceptions of the impact of chemistry demon -
strations on students’ interest and performance in chemistry classes and 
on the quality of students’ knowledge of chemistry. The results show that 
regardless of the years of teaching experience and the frequency of per -
forming chemistry demonstrations, the participating teachers consider 
such demonstrations to have a positive effect on the motivation and per -
formance of the students in chemistry and on the quality of the students’ 
knowledge of chemistry.
 Keywords: chemical concepts understanding, chemistry demonstra -
tions, chemistry teaching, students’ interest 
1 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
 luka.vinko@pef.uni-lj.si.
2 Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Australia.
3 Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
varia
doi: 10.26529/cepsj.893

10 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
Mnenje učiteljev o učinkih demonstracijskih 
eksperimentov na interes učencev in njihovo kemijsko 
znanje
Luka Vinko, Seamus Delaney in Iztok Devetak 
• Kemija je eksperimentalna veda, ki uporablja eksperiment kot eno 
glavnih orodij preučevanja. Laboratorijsko in drugo praktično delo sta 
tako bistvena tudi pri kemijskem izobraževanju. Demonstracijske eks -
perimente učitelji uporabljajo kot pedagoški pristop, ki lahko povečuje 
učenčev interes za kemijo pa tudi motivira učence za učenje z razume -
vanjem. Če so učenci v demonstracijo aktivno vključeni, pa so lahko 
demonstracijski eksperimenti enako učinkoviti oziroma še učinkovi -
tejši kot samostojno eksperimentiranje učencev. Namen raziskave je bil 
preučiti mnenja učiteljev o učinkih demonstracijskih eksperimentov na 
učenčev interes in uspešnost pri pouku kemije ter na kakovost učenče -
vega kemijskega znanja. V raziskavi, ki je temeljila na kvantitativnem 
raziskovalnem pristopu, je sodelovalo 81 osnovnošolskih in srednješol -
skih učiteljev iz različnih statističnih regij Slovenije. Učitelji so izpolnili 
spletni vprašalnik, ki se je navezoval na njihovo mnenje o učinkih izva -
janja demonstracijskih eksperimentov na interes učencev in uspešnost 
pri pouku kemije ter na kakovost učenčevega kemijskega znanja. Ugoto -
vljeno je bilo, da učitelji ne glede na delovno dobo in pogostost izvajanja 
demonstracijskih eksperimentov po večini menijo, da demonstracijski 
eksperimenti pozitivno vplivajo na interes in uspešnost učencev pri po -
uku kemije ter na kakovost učenčevega kemijskega znanja.
 Ključne besede: razumevanje kemijskih pojmov, demonstracijski 
eksperimenti, poučevanje kemije, interes učencev

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 11
Introduction
The experiment is one of the most important research methods in chem -
istry. Laboratory work and other practical work are, therefore, also essential 
in chemistry lessons (Tsaparlis, 2009), which can also be observed in primary 
and secondary school curricula, which are mainly based on activities at the 
macroscopic level, indicating that students need to understand chemistry as an 
experimental discipline (Wissiak Grm & Glažar, 2002). However, the macro -
scopic level of chemistry is an essential component for students to understand 
the submicroscopic (particulate) and symbolic levels of chemical concepts 
(Pavlin, Glažar, Slapničar, & Devetak, 2019). Practical work includes activities 
in which students handle substances and materials in order to carry out a cer -
tain chemical reaction or observe chemistry demonstrations (Hodson, 1990). 
The basic goal of these activities is to learn new chemical concepts. Chemistry 
demonstrations are usually conducted by teachers or experts who can provide 
the best quality demonstration for students. The latter should participate as ac -
tive learners and acquire knowledge experientially. The advantage of chemistry 
demonstrations is that teachers have greater control over the overall work ar -
rangement of the experiment and can focus students’ attention on the most 
important parts of the experiment (Johnston & Al-Shuaili, 2001).
This paper aims to determine the opinions of Slovenian chemistry teach -
ers on how the use of chemistry demonstrations in chemistry lessons influences 
the students’ interest in chemistry and their performance. The term ‘chemistry 
demonstrations’ is used for the purposes of this paper when the teacher’s ex -
perimental work performed in front of the whole class is discussed.
Practical work
When we speak of practical work, we usually speak of activities where 
students observe or work with objects and materials (individually in pairs or in 
groups) or observe teacher demonstrations (Hofstein, 2015). Practical work in -
cludes not only work in a real chemistry laboratory, but also any activity involving 
tangible objects that enable students to handle and interact with substances, such 
as dissolving sodium chloride in water. By stimulating interest and enjoyment, 
practical work motivates students, teaches them laboratory skills, improves their 
learning of science, gives them insight into scientific methods and develops scien -
tific reasoning, such as objectivity and open-mindedness (Hodson, 1990). Prac -
tical or experimental work emphasises students’ understanding of the nature of 
science, for which it is not enough to learn the facts by rota, but it is also a dynamic 
process of finding different ways to explain natural phenomena (Hodson, 1993).

12 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
It can be said that experiments and practical work play a central role in 
science teaching; in most cases, both teachers and students have a very posi -
tive attitude towards practical work, especially because they ‘like to experiment’ . 
From the perspective of science teaching, experiments can contribute to vari -
ous aspects of science learning, but they are usually used in everyday science 
teaching for a limited number of goals (Haagen-Schützenhöfer & Joham, 2018).
Chemistry demonstrations
Teachers use chemistry demonstrations as a pedagogical approach that 
not only increases students’ interest in chemistry but also motivates them to 
learn with understanding (Bodner, 2001; Beall, 1996; Buncick, Betts, & Horgan, 
2001; Zimrot & Ashkenazi, 2007). Despite the students’ opinion that chemistry 
demonstrations are not as effective as active individual hands-on experimental 
work, we should not ignore the fact that students who perform experiments in -
dividually often focus on unimportant parts of the experiment while neglecting 
to focus on other more meaningful parts.
The advantage of chemistry demonstrations is that the teacher has more 
control over the course of the experiment and can thus direct the students’ con -
centration to the important parts of the experiment (Johnstone & Al-Shuaili, 
2001). White (1996) found that chemistry demonstrations can be as effective 
as individual hands-on experimental work if the students are actively involved 
in the demonstration (they observe, write down the results, complete tasks re -
lated to the experiments, etc.). Logar and Ferk Savec (2011) also concluded that 
chemistry demonstrations are more effective in terms of students’ long-term 
knowledge than students’ hands-on experimental work.
When conducting a chemistry demonstration, we have the power to decide 
whether the experiment will be trivial and fun or whether it will serve to actu -
ally show and explain a particular chemical concept (Meyer, Schmidt, Nozawa, & 
Panee, 2003). The teacher must not only choose the right experiment to explain a 
particular chemistry concept but must also take into account that it is suitable for 
students according to their age and previous chemical knowledge and that it is rela -
tively easy and not too expensive to perform (Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell, 2000).
In choosing the appropriate experiment, one must consider how to carry 
out the demonstration and show it to the students to make them think about what 
they have seen, and one should draw appropriate conclusions to learn new con -
cepts (Kelter, 1994). The teacher must perform the experiment at least once before 
presenting it to the students. In this way, he/she can strengthen his/her skills and at 
the same time consider how to explain what happens during the demonstration in 
order to effectively present the desired chemical concept to students (Moore, 2000).

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 13
Thorough preparation for the demonstration allows the teacher to devote 
time to the students and guide the learning process during the demonstration. 
Teachers have two roles in conducting a demonstration. Not only do they have 
to carry out a particular experiment, but they also have to take special care that 
all students clearly observe the course of the experiment. The teacher should also 
direct their attention and attempt to involve the students in the chemical process 
to be demonstrated. In this sense, experiments can be both educational and enter -
taining. By actively participating in the demonstration, students learn much more 
than usual (Logar & Ferk Savec, 2011; Waldman, Schechinger, & Nowick, 1996).
Chemistry demonstrations bring important experiences with them, which 
can be a topic of discussion for over-generalised and simple chemical concepts. 
The design of such demonstrations begins with the evaluation of the students’ 
knowledge and the exploration of specific contexts by the teachers in which he or 
she places certain chemistry demonstrations. These contexts can then be useful 
discussion topics for chemistry lessons (Ashkenazi & Weaver, 2007).
In order to involve students more actively in the demonstrations, Chame -
ly-Wiik, Haky, Louda, and Romance (2014) proposed a specific SQER3 model 
(survey, question, experiment, recite, reflect, review) that provides guidelines for 
the development of quality demonstrations. This model consists of several steps: 
1) Survey: focuses on key concepts and basic questions that arise during the dem -
onstration; 2) Question: students develop a testable question based on observa -
tions and prior knowledge; 3) Experiment: students and teachers develop an ex -
periment to answer the question, make observations and collect data; 4) Reciting: 
students organise the data and verbalise the results; 5) Reflecting: students explain 
the results and develop additional questions needed to understand the concepts; 
6) Reviewing: teachers and students review the key concepts and apply them to 
new situations. The SQER3 model can be easily used for most demonstrations, 
allowing for the flexible design and execution of chemistry demonstrations.
Research problem and research questions
Based on the results of the national evaluation of chemical knowledge at 
the end of compulsory education (9th grade, average age of students 14 years), it 
can be concluded that students have problems in solving tasks involving experi -
mental work. After the literature review, the research problem was defined to 
be how demonstration experiments affect the students’ motivation, their per -
formance in chemistry lessons, and their chemical knowledge. Based on this 
research problem, four research questions were formed:
1.  How do teachers involve their students in conducting chemistry 
demonstrations?

14 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
2.  Do chemistry teachers evaluate the impact of chemistry demonstrations 
on students’ performance and interest in learning chemistry significantly 
differently?
3.  Do chemistry teachers with different lengths of teaching experience 
have significantly different opinions about the impact of chemistry dem -
onstrations on students’ knowledge of chemistry?
4.  Do chemistry teachers who conduct a varying number of chemistry 
demonstrations in their classes evaluate the impact of chemistry dem -
onstrations on student performance and interest in chemistry education 
significantly differently?
Method 
Participants
Teachers of the lower secondary school (students aged 12 to 14) and the 
upper secondary school (students aged 15 to 18) in service chemistry teachers 
participated in this research. The teachers were randomly selected from all sta -
tistical regions (Figure 1) of Slovenia according to the database provided by the 
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. A total of 81 in-service teachers (57 
lower secondary elementary and 24 upper secondary school chemistry teach -
ers) were selected for research. They participated voluntarily in this study.
Figure 1: Distribution of participating teachers by Slovenian statistical regions. 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 15
Table 1
The number of teachers in the specific age group. 
Teachers’ age in years n 
56 or more 11
46–55 29
36–45 27
26–35 12
25 or less 2
Sum 81
The majority of teachers in the sample were between 36 and 55 years old 
(69%). 
Table 2
The number of teachers by years of teaching experience.
Years of teaching experience n
More than 15 50
11–15 14
6–10 8
2–5 6
Teaching the first year 3
Sum 81
More than 60% of all teachers participating in this study had more than 
15 years of practical experience in teaching chemistry in lower and upper sec -
ondary schools.
Instrument
The instrument was an online questionnaire co-developed with re -
searchers from Deakin University in Australia as part of an international pro -
ject: ‘Interactive Demonstration Experiments combining macro observations 
with sub-micro observations - Teacher’s explanation and student activity’ . The 
questionnaire included an introductory section on the demographic variables 
of teachers (e.g., age, experience in teaching chemistry. etc.) and three parts 
on teachers’ approaches to teaching chemistry with chemistry demonstra -
tions: 1) student participation in chemistry demonstrations (1 question), 2) 
teacher’s opinion on how chemistry demonstrations affect student motivation 

16 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
(4 questions) and () teacher’s opinion on how chemistry demonstrations affect 
student’s chemistry knowledge (4 questions). The question from the first con -
tent block was an open question type; the other questions were based on the 
5-point Likert scale.
Research design
The research was carried out as part of an international project link -
ing three countries and three universities: Deakin University, Australia, Tallinn 
University, Estonia and the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. The project was 
led by researchers from Australia, who also drafted the questionnaire in Eng -
lish. Comments and additions were submitted by the partner institutions, and 
the final form of the instrument was drawn up on this basis. The questionnaire 
was then translated into Slovenian and checked by three experts in the field 
of chemical education, which ensured the validity of the translation. Deakin 
University Qualtrics project managers provided computer support for the im -
plementation of the Slovenian version of the online questionnaire. For the pur -
poses of this paper, only data from Slovenian chemistry teaches has been used.
The instrument was sent out in two phases by e-mail to all selected 
teachers, as it was not possible to reach a sufficiently large sample in all national 
regions in just one phase. Prior to this, all teachers received an electronic note 
describing the study. After sending a reminder with a link to the online ques -
tionnaire to a total of 130 schools, it was completed by 81 teachers. The data 
were exported from an online database into an Excel and SPSS file. Descriptive 
and interferential statistics were used to process the data. Because of the non-
normal data distribution, non-parametric (Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis) tests 
were used. The answers to the open questions were analysed and divided into 
different categories.
Results and discussion
The results are presented with regard to the research questions men -
tioned above.
The first research question was: ‘How do teachers involve their students 
in conducting chemistry demonstrations?’; for that, the aim was to determine 
what the students do while the teachers are conducting chemistry demonstra -
tions and also what the teachers expect their students to do during a demon -
stration; 73 teachers gave one or more answers. The answers were categorised 
and are presented in a frequency table. The answers, which appeared only once 
or twice, were left in the same form as they were written by the teachers.

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 17
Table 3
Possibilities for involving students in demonstration experiments.
Participation of the students in demonstration experiments f
Students observe the experiment. 61
They comment on and explain the observations. 33
They write down the observations. 22
You write conclusions based on observations / you connect the observations with the theory 18
They predict the course of the experiment. 12
They ask questions. 12
They answer questions. 11
They participate in the execution of the experiment. 10
The completed worksheets. 7
You draw the sketch of the experimental apparatus. 7
You write down the chemical reaction equation. 5
Other. 35
According to the categories, teachers want their students to write down, 
comment on and/or explain the observations ( f = 73), followed by the students 
who observe the chemistry demonstrations ( f = 61). Twenty-three teachers en -
courage their students to ask or answer questions about chemistry demonstra -
tions, and 12 teachers want their students to predict the course of experiments 
before the chemistry demonstration. T en of them ask their students to take part 
in the chemistry demonstration. Less than ten teachers involve their students 
in chemistry demonstrations by having them fill out worksheets, draw a sketch 
of the experimental apparatus and write down the chemical reaction equation.
Under the category ‘other’ , 35 answers from teachers were categorised ac -
cording to the frequency of their occurrence. The answers, which appeared twice, 
were: ‘They write down a list of the chemicals used in the demonstration’; ‘de -
scribe the laboratory equipment’; ‘discuss safety precautions’; ‘think about what’s 
happening with reactants and products’; ‘comment on results’; ‘make hypotheses’; 
‘listen to the teacher’s explanation’ . The answers that appeared only once were as 
follows: ‘they learn how to handle hazardous substances’; ‘they learn chemical 
techniques’; ‘they carry out the experiment themselves’; ‘they point out the con -
stants and variables’; ‘they highlight key concepts that are captured by a chemical 
reaction’; ‘analyse the execution of the experiment’; ‘suggest possible improve -
ments of the experiment’; ‘try to make the demonstration experiment appro -
priate in different subject areas’; ‘search for solutions’; ‘enhance the experiment 
with their ideas’; ‘participate in planning the chemistry demonstration’; ‘plan the 

18 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
necessary protection’; ‘solve tasks related to the experiment’; ‘try to transfer the 
acquired knowledge to new cases’; ‘record the experiment with a mobile phone’; 
‘write down questions’; ‘test whether there has been a change in temperature’ .
Similar results were found by Price and Brooks (2012): teachers ex -
plained that they involve students in experimental activities by instructing 
them to observe the course of the experiment actively. Some teachers invite stu -
dents to predict the outcome of the experiment or instruct them to participate 
in it, while others ask them questions during the experiment that lead them to 
conclusions. Walton (2002) researched first-year chemistry students and found 
that a good way to engage his students was to have them write their obser -
vations on worksheets and then pass them on to their colleagues to evaluate 
the written observations and conclusions. It was also found that about 25% of 
teachers involve their students by telling them to write down their observations 
and draw conclusions from them. Ashkenazi and Waever (2007) found that 
students learn best when the teacher asks them to predict the results of the ex -
periment in advance, consult with their neighbour and report their predictions.
The second research question was: ‘Do chemistry teachers evaluate the 
impact of chemistry demonstrations on students’ performance and interest in 
learning chemistry significantly differently?’ and, in this context, the answers to 
four items from the questionnaire were totalled to determine the teachers’ opinion 
about the impact of chemistry demonstrations on students’ performance in chem -
istry and their impact on students’ interest in it. Teachers expressed their opinions 
on the impact of chemistry demonstrations on the quality of the homework done, 
the practical work of the students, and the results of the students’ knowledge tests.
Table 4
Teachers’ opinions on the effects of demonstration experiments.
N* Me IQR Z p
Effect on chemistry achievements 78 17 3
-.325 .745
Effect on interest 78 17 3
Note. *Three teachers did not complete the survey.
Although there were no statistically significant differences ( Z = -.325; p = 
.745) between teachers’ assessments of the impact of chemistry demonstrations on 
students’ performance in chemistry and motivation to learn it, the results show that 
teachers assess a slightly greater effect of demonstration experiments on students’ 
performance ( Me = 17; IQR = 3) than on their motivation to learn chemistry ( Me = 
17; IQR = 3). Teachers’ responses gave results similar to those in the literature, where 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 19
teachers participating in the study said that demonstrations had a positive effect on 
students’ practical work, their exam results, their understanding of chemistry con -
cepts and their motivation for homework and laboratory work (Price & Brooks, 2012).
The authors attributed the effects of demonstration experiments to the 
performance of the students much more than the effects on motivation, which 
is also in line with the results of our research.
Similar results were found by Basheer, Hugerat, Kortam, and Hofstein 
(2017), who also believe that demonstrations, if done correctly, increase stu -
dents’ understanding of certain chemical phenomena, their motivation and 
their interest in learning chemistry.
The third research question was: ‘Do chemistry teachers with different 
lengths of teaching experience have significantly different opinions about the impact 
of chemistry demonstrations on students’ knowledge of chemistry?’ In this case, the 
teachers had to give their agreement to four statements using a 5-point Likert scale 
according to their years of experience in teaching chemistry, teachers were divided 
into three groups: (1) 1–5 years, (2) 6–15 years and (3) more than 15 years.
Table 5
Teachers’ opinions on the impact of chemistry demonstrations on students’ 
chemistry knowledge based on their years of experience in teaching chemistry.
Statement
Years of experience in 
teaching chemistry
N R χ
2
df p
Chemistry demonstrations help 
students to make links between 
the three levels of chemical rep-
resentation (macro, sub-micro 
and symbolic representation.
1–5 years 12 40.8
6–15 years 20 42.3 .681 2 .711
more than 15 years 46 37.6
Total 78
Chemistry demonstrations in-
crease students’ confusion about 
abstract chemical concepts.
1–5 years 12 46.9
6–15 years 20 40.4 1.972 2 .373
more than 15 years 46 37.2
Total 78
Chemistry demonstrations 
help the students to relate the 
particle nature of matter to the 
observations of the demonstra-
tion.
1–5 years 12 38.7
6–15 years 20 38.8 .069 2 .966
more than 15 years 46 40.0
Total 78
Chemistry demonstrations de-
velop the students’ curiosity to 
learn more about chemistry.
1–5 years 12 35.3
6–15 years 20 37.5 1.390 2 .499
more than 15 years 46 41.5
Total 78

20 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
There are no significant differences between teachers with different expe -
rience in teaching chemistry and their agreement with the following statements: 
1) ‘Demonstrations help students make links between the “three levels” of chem -
istry representation (macro, sub-micro and symbolic representation)’ , ( χ2 = 0.681; 
df = 2; p = .711); 2) ‘Demonstrations increase students’ confusion about abstract 
chemistry concepts’ , ( χ2 = 1.972; df = 2; p = .373); 3) ‘Demonstrations help students 
relate the particle nature of matter to the observations in the demonstration’ , ( χ2 
= 0.069; df = 2; p = .966); 4) ‘Demonstrations develop in students a curiosity to 
know more about chemistry’ , ( χ2 = 1.390; df = 2; p = .499). Although there are no 
significant differences between the teachers, we can say that most of them agree 
with all statements, regardless of their teaching experience.
The fourth research question was: ‘Do chemistry teachers who conduct 
a varying number of chemistry demonstrations in their classes evaluate the 
impact of chemistry demonstrations on student performance and interest in 
chemistry education significantly differently?’ . Teachers were divided into three 
groups according to how often they carry out demonstrations, and the answers 
to four items from the questionnaire were totalled to determine their opinion 
about the effects of demonstration experiments on students’ performance in 
chemistry and their impact on students’ interest in learning chemistry. Teach -
ers expressed their opinions on the impact of demonstration experiments on 
the quality of the homework done and the practical work of the students, the 
results of the students’ knowledge tests, and their level of knowledge of chemi -
cal concepts.
Table 6
Teachers’ assessments of the impact of chemistry demonstrations on student 
performance in chemistry and interest in learning chemistry based on the 
frequency with which teachers conduct chemistry demonstrations.
Frequency of performing demonstra-
tion experiments
N R χ
2
df p
Effect on 
chemistry 
achievements 
Rarely or approx. once a month 9 32.7
2.550 2 .279
Twice or three times a month 37 34.4
Once, twice or three times a week 27 42.1
Total 73
Effect on 
interest
Rarely or approx. once a month 9 38.8
4.463 2 .107
Twice or three times a month 37 31.6
Once, twice or three times a week 26 42.7
Total 72

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 21
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed no significant differences between 
teachers with different frequencies of conducting chemistry demonstrations 
and their assessments of the impact of chemistry demonstrations on student 
performance in chemistry ( χ2 = 2.550; df = 2; p = .279). In the sample, teachers 
who conduct chemistry demonstrations two or three times a month estimated 
that chemistry demonstrations have a more positive effect on both chemistry 
performances than teachers who conduct chemistry demonstrations rarely or 
about once a month and once, twice or three times a week.
There were also no significant differences between teachers with differ -
ent frequencies of conducting chemistry demonstrations and their assessments 
of the impact of chemistry demonstrations on students’ interest in learning 
chemistry ( χ2 = 4.463; df = 2; p = .107). In the sample, teachers who conduct 
chemistry demonstrations once, twice or three times a week estimated that 
chemistry demonstrations have a more positive effect on both students’ per -
formances in chemistry than teachers who conduct chemistry demonstrations 
rarely or about once a month and twice or three times a month.
In summary, no matter how often teachers conduct chemistry demon -
strations, there is no difference in their assessments of how demonstration ex -
periments contribute to students’ interest and achievement in chemistry, which 
can mean that the effect is always the same, regardless of how often they per -
form chemistry demonstrations. However, average rankings show that teach -
ers who conduct chemistry demonstrations attribute a slightly greater effect to 
student performance and motivation to chemistry demonstrations.
Conclusions
The results show that most teachers involve their students in chemistry 
demonstrations by asking them to write down, comment on, and/or explain 
their observations, followed by the students who observe the experiment.
The results show that there are no significant differences between teach -
ers’ assessments of the effect of chemistry demonstration on performance in 
chemistry and students’ interest in chemistry lessons. The impact of the chem -
istry demonstration experiments on the students’ performance became almost 
as important as their impact on the students’ interest.
The results show that there are no significant differences between teach -
ers with different lengths of teaching experience with regard to their opinions 
on the effects of chemistry demonstrations on the students’ chemistry knowl -
edge. Despite their different lengths of teaching experience, most teachers 
agreed with the statements of the questionnaire. However, the results also show 

22 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
that a larger proportion of teachers, especially senior teachers, should have con -
sidered that demonstration experiments have a positive effect on the quality 
of the students’ chemical knowledge. From this perspective, it is important to 
provide continuous training for teachers so that the quality and frequency of 
chemistry demonstrations remains high and in line with recent trends in edu -
cation. Only in this manner can teachers can influence the quality of students’ 
chemical knowledge through chemistry demonstrations.
The results show that there are no significant differences between teach -
ers who conduct a varying number of chemistry demonstrations in their classes 
on the impact of chemistry demonstrations on student performance and inter -
est in learning chemistry. Teachers who frequently (once, twice or three times 
a week) conduct demonstration experiments believe that demonstrations have 
a greater impact on students’ performance in chemistry and their interest in 
learning chemistry. 
In summary, it can be said that the more often teachers conduct chem -
istry demonstrations in their classes, the more motivated and successful the 
students are in chemistry lessons. It is also logical that teachers who conduct 
chemistry demonstrations less frequently or not at all find that the motivation 
and performance of the students are not affected by the chemistry demonstra -
tions. The reason for such an assessment may be that they have carried out 
chemistry demonstrations in the past and have seen that they do not influence 
the interest and performance in chemistry, or they do not know what effect 
demonstration experiments would have if they were carried out frequently and, 
above all, pedagogically correctly.
Limitations of the research
Based on the research design, the following limitations can be identified: 
1) small sample of participating teachers, 2) some of the teachers participating 
in the research did not complete the questionnaire, 3) it is not possible to obtain 
data on the students’ chemistry achievements, their interest in learning chem -
istry and the impact of conducting chemistry demonstrations, and 4) it is dif -
ficult to assess the actual course of chemistry teaching on the basis of the ques -
tionnaire because the respondents’ teaching was not systematically monitored.
Application for chemical education
On the basis of the research results, some guidelines for the implementa -
tion of the findings in the educational process can be introduced. It is necessary 
to emphasise the importance of experimental work and thus of chemistry dem -
onstrations in courses at the university during pre-service chemistry teacher 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 23
education. This would require the preparation of materials and e-units to help 
in-service and pre-service teachers to prepare and conduct chemistry demon -
strations in their classes. It is also important to involve teachers in projects that 
explore new principles and the ways of conducting chemistry demonstrations 
in schools, such as the SQER3 model proposed by Chamely-Wiik et al. (2014). 
Professional development programmes are also important for teachers current -
ly teaching in schools and who have not been able to acquire this knowledge 
during their studies, as trends in the educational process change and improve. 
Such programs would introduce teachers to the importance of demonstra -
tion experiments to develop high quality chemical knowledge and to motivate 
students, as well as to ways of implementation, with particular emphasis on 
inquiry-based learning.
Guidelines for further research
It would be highly advisable to obtain a slightly larger sample of teach -
ers in the course of further research, which would show a somewhat more re -
alistic situation regarding the use of chemistry demonstrations in Slovenian 
primary and secondary schools. A similar questionnaire would also be given to 
the students of the participating teachers to see how their views and opinions 
on chemistry demonstrations in chemistry lessons differ. In addition, teachers 
should be observed in class to determine how they teach, what demonstrations 
they give, when they give them and how often. It would also be helpful to im -
plement different approaches to experimental work in the classroom and to 
identify those that have a greater impact on students’ interest in learning chem -
istry and their achievements.
References
Ashkenazi, G., & Weaver, G. C. (2007). Using lecture demonstrations to promote the refinement of 
concepts: the case of teaching solvent miscibility. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 
186–196.
Basheer, A., Hugerat, M., Kortam, N., & Hofstein, A. (2017). The effectiveness of teachers’ use of 
demonstrations for enhancing students’ understanding of and attitudes to learning the oxidation-
reduction concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 13(3), 555–570.
Beall, H. (1996). Report on the WPI Conference” demonstrations as a teaching tool in chemistry: Pro 
and con” . Journal of chemical education , 73(7), 641–642.
Bodner, G. M. (2001). Why lecture demonstrations are ‘exocharmic’ for both students and their 
instructors. University Chemistry Education, 5(1), 31–35.
Buncick, M. C., Betts, P . G., & Horgan, D. D. (2001). Using demonstrations as a contextual road map: 

24 teachers’ opinions about the effect of chemistry demonstrations on students’ ...
enhancing course continuity and promoting active engagement in introductory college physics. 
International Journal of Science Education , 23(12), 1237–1255.
Chamely-Wiik, D. M., Haky, J. E., Louda, D. W ., & Romance, N. (2014). SQER3: An instructional 
framework for using scientific inquiry to design classroom demonstrations. Journal of Chemical 
Education, 91(3), 329–335.
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Joham, B. (2018). Professionalising physics teachers in doing 
experimental work. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8 (1), 9–34.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 
33–40.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in 
school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142.
Hofstein, A. (2015). Laboratory Work, Forms of. Encyclopedia of Science Education, 563–566.
Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the 
literature. University Chemistry Education, 5(2), 42–51.
Kelter, P . (1994). Are our demonstration-based workshops doing more harm than good? Journal of 
Chemical Education, 71(2), 109–110.
Logar, A., & Savec, V . F. (2011). Students’ hands-on experimental work vs lecture demonstration in 
teaching elementary school chemistry. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 58(4), 866–875.
Meyer, L. S., Panee, D., Schmidt, S., & Nozawa, F. (2003). Using demonstrations to promote student 
comprehension in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80 (4), 431–435.
Moore, J. W . (2000). Enthusiastic teachers, vivid experiments. Journal of Chemical Education , 77(4), 
429.
Pavlin, J., Glažar, S. A., Slapničar, M., & Devetak, I. (2019). The impact of students’ educational 
background, interest in learning, formal reasoning and visualisation abilities on gas context-based 
exercises achievements with submicro-animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 
633–649.
Price, D. S., & Brooks, D. W . (2012). Extensiveness and perceptions of lecture demonstrations in the 
high school chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 420–427.
Trowbridge, L., Bybee, R., & Powell, J. (2000). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for 
developing scientific literacy. Pearson.
Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work. In J. K. Gilbert & D. 
Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, models and modeling in science 
education (pp. 109–136). Springer.
Waldman, A. S., Schechinger, L., & Nowick, J. S. (1996). A coordinated chemistry outreach program 
for thousands of high school students. Journal of Chemical Education , 73(8), 762–764.
Walton, P . H. (2002). On the use of chemical demonstrations in lectures. University Chemistry 
Education, 6(1), 22–27.
White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science 
Education, 18(7), 761–774.

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
2 | Y ear 2020 25
Wissiak-Grm, K. S., & Glažar, S. A. (2002). Pomen eksperimentalnega dela pri učenju in poučevanju 
kemije v osnovni šoli [The importance of experimental work in learning and teaching chemistry in 
primary school]. Sodobna pedagogika, 53(2), 96–106.
Zimrot, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Interactive lecture demonstrations: a tool for exploring and 
enhancing conceptual change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 197–211.
Biographical note
Luka Vinko is a teaching assistant in the field of chemical education at 
the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Slovenia. His research intere -
sts include experimental work in chemistry classes in primary and secondary 
school.
Seamus Delaney, PhD, is a lecturer in the field of didactics of science 
at the Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Australia. His research 
interests include teaching and learning in chemistry, science education in out -
-of-school/informal learning contexts, systems thinking to address socio-scien -
tific issues in chemistry, teacher education and their professional development.
Iztok Devetak, PhD, is Full Professor of Chemical Education at Uni -
versity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Slovenia. His research focuses on 
students’ chemistry learning and their motivation, how chemistry in context 
stimulates learning using eye-tracking technology in explaining science lear -
ning, aspects of environmental education, and the development of teachers' 
health-managing competences.