Is having only two core concepts for DP chemistry enough?

I’ll admit, when I first went through the updated DP Chemistry course guide, I felt a bit underwhelmed. With only "structure" and "reactivity" highlighted as the core concepts, especially compared to the broader conceptual scope of other sciences, I felt like something was missing in chemistry. So, I decided to experiment with introducing additional concepts into my teaching.

Take the Particulate Nature of Matter unit, for instance. Rather than focusing solely on structure, I’ve woven in concepts like "evidence" and "models." When we explore J.J. Thomson’s hypothesis of the atom being a diffuse sphere of positive charge with embedded electrons, I prompt students to consider: What evidence would we need to accept this? We then dive into the famous Gold Foil Experiment through this wonderful PhET simulation, where students see firsthand how unexpected evidence can lead to the development of a new model of atomic structure.

These discussions have sparked deeper engagement. Students are not just learning about how models can be used to represent structures but also questioning their limitations, thinking critically about what evidence can reveal, and how different types of data can either support or challenge scientific ideas.

This has worked wonders in my classroom, but it raises an interesting question: Why does the Diploma Programme only explicitly emphasize two core concepts in the chemistry course guide? Is this meant to give teachers more autonomy to explore additional concepts, or is it an oversight on the IB's part?

I’d love to hear from fellow DP Chemistry teachers— how are you handling concepts in your teaching? Have you introduced your own, like I have, and how has it impacted student engagement?

Let’s share ideas!??

#ChemistryEducation #IBDP #ConceptBasedLearning #STEM #TeacherAutonomy #IBChemistry