Monday, February 16, 2026

Afraid of chemistry at school? It’s not all the subject’s fault

A new paper published in JCOM shows that non-formal education settings can boost students’ motivation to engage with chemistry.

Sissa Medialab

Interactive exhibition explaining advanced oxidation processes — image:
Students during the activities in the museum
view more
Credit: da Rocha et al

Raise your hand if you dreaded chemistry lessons at school. Apart from a few exceptional cases, this discipline is often perceived as difficult, abstract and removed from real life. This affects students’ motivation and choices, discouraging them from pursuing academic and professional careers in this important and, in fact, fascinating field.

In a new article published in JCOM, a team of Brazilian researchers — Ariane Carolina da Rocha, Ana Carolina Steola and Ana Cláudia Kasseboehmer, all from the Instituto de Química de São Carlos (Universidade de São Paulo) — worked with numerous public school classes of various types to show how non-formal education methods, such as those used in science museums, can support traditional educational pathways and improve students’ motivation.

Chemophobia

There is a specific term to describe the phenomenon: chemophobia. “It is the negative perception of chemistry and is often associated with the idea that it is dangerous, too difficult or disconnected from everyday life. This perception generally stems from a lack of information and from the way chemistry is taught,” explains da Rocha. “Chemistry is often perceived as difficult because it involves abstract concepts, symbols and mathematical representations. Many students – and even other people – do not see a clear link between chemistry and their daily lives.”

“Traditional teaching methods can be very content‑focused and not very interactive, which reduces student engagement,” da Rocha continues. For this reason, the non‑formal education methods used in science museums and science centres can play an important role in supporting school curricula.

The theoretical framework: Self‑Determination Theory

Da Rocha and her colleagues based their research on the theoretical framework of Self‑Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in 1985. SDT is a psychological theory proposing that motivation is strongly linked to three basic needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. “We chose this theoretical framework because it helps us understand not only what students learn, but also how they feel during learning, especially in non‑formal education contexts,” says da Rocha.

The research took place with high‑school students from six public schools in peripheral neighbourhoods of São Carlos, Brazil. The choice of these schools aimed to expand students’ access to non‑formal education experiences and to science communication initiatives linked to the university.

An interactive exhibition on advanced oxidation processes

An interactive exhibition explaining advanced oxidation processes (AOP), visited by more than 250 students, was used in the study. The exhibition, based on a university research project, illustrated various processes for degrading organic compounds such as dyes, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Among these, AOP stood out, capable of transforming organic compounds into less toxic substances using techniques considered environmentally friendly. In this context it was possible to explore and discuss, through science communication activities, concepts such as electrochemistry, oxidation for pollutant degradation and radical reactions. The activity involved interaction with a physical model and with the exhibition. For the qualitative phase, students who had shown the highest and lowest levels of participation were selected for interviews, allowing different forms of engagement, interest and participation to be analysed.

Reducing chemophobia through non‑formal education

The results showed that students who took part in the non‑formal education activities demonstrated greater interest and involvement in chemistry: interacting with the subject increased their sense of competence and confidence, leading to a more positive and closer perception of the discipline.

“This indicates that chemophobia does not depend solely on the content itself,” concludes da Rocha, “but also on teaching approaches and learning environments.” When students experience meaningful, interactive and welcoming contexts, negative perceptions of chemistry tend to diminish.

The paper “Exploring Chemistry: the impact of an interactive model on student motivation in non-formal education spaces” is part of JCOM’s new special issue “Unexpected places.”

Journal

Journal of Science Communication

DOI

10.22323/167120260102161441

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Exploring Chemistry: the impact of an interactive model on student motivation in non-formal education spaces

Article Publication Date

11-Feb-2026

Students during the activity at the museum

How tech-dependency and pandemic isolation have created ‘anxious generation’

Taylor & Francis Group

Unchecked use of technology and pandemic isolation have ‘reshaped’ how teenagers develop – but it’s not too late to intervene.

This is the stark warning of educator Amber Chandler, who suggests teens are struggling with unprecedented levels of anxiety in this ‘scared new world’, which presents a major challenge for parents and schools. However, the teacher says children can learn to flourish and thrive if given the right support.

No phones at bedtime, ‘no-tech’ public spaces and letting children handle their own problems are among scientific evidence-based solutions offered in her book Reclaiming Connection – How Schools and Families Can Nurture Belonging in a Scared New World.

Chandler also suggests parents become more ‘present’ by not scrolling on their smartphones when with their children. They can then take the lead in teaching their offspring how to be in the ‘here and now’.

Schools also have a vital role to play, she suggests, by helping students to navigate technology responsibly and safely.

Chandler’s position is not isolated, in fact concerns are growing worldwide among parents, schools and policymakers over the impact of smart phones and other devices on young people. Australia, for example, has recently banned social media for under 16s and other countries are considering similar policies.

Besides the unprecedented challenges teens face in the hyper-connected digital world, this generation of adolescents experienced an equally unprecedented global pandemic which isolated them from peers and shut off many developmental opportunities, while making many young people dependent on screens.

“The addictive nature of students’ online experiences began during the pandemic but has progressed now to a point where we must make some hard decisions, courageous decisions,” she explains. “These decisions require the ‘adults in the room’ to look at the evidence that screens, used indiscriminately, are toxic.

“The Scared New World that I fear we are inhabiting is the result of a reckless alchemy concocted from the isolation of the pandemic amalgamated with digital distractions far more powerful than we had suspected.”

Chandler hopes to counter the detrimental impact of the pandemic on young people’s social and emotional development by helping families, communities and schools come together to help them succeed.

She presents solutions based on her experiences spanning more than 20 years as a English Language Arts teacher, including seemingly simple suggestions such as teaching children about their data and digital footprint, and embracing opportunities for young people to get involved in clubs, groups and face-to-face activities.

An initial hurdle for many parents and teachers to overcome, she suggests, is pandemic fatigue – where many adults are simply ‘sick of’ talking about the pandemic, making addressing any issues doubly challenging.

“As I’m learning more, it is becoming clear that it isn’t something we can wish away. I’m saddened because the trauma inflicted on all of us has left its physical mark on us which then is playing out in the classroom and society,” she says.

The author also shares anecdotes about her own shortcomings as a parent to demonstrate the challenges that families face. She reveals she’s a ‘snowplough’ parent who clears obstacles from her children’s path, but who wasn’t alert to the dangers of smartphones. Now aware of the neurological changes in young people caused by screen use, Chandler advises parents to delay introducing phones and screens as long as possible.

“I’ll be honest, as an adult in this situation, I felt pretty guilty about my own children’s social media use when I realized that it was 100% designed to addict them and then mine their identity,” she explains.

But it’s not just parents – schools are increasingly reaching to screens to educate and test their students, something Chandler has deep concerns about.

“I am not anti-technology, but I am very much worried about the implications of our obsession with data collection that simply leads to remediation upon remediation. Instead, the younger years should be about discovery and innovation, problem solving and collaboration,” she explains.

Her advice to families, schools and mentors is to be compassionate about the decisions made until now, but to insist on change for the future: “We have to recognize that we were duped. Most people simply did not know that cellphones were addictive.”

The author doesn’t shy away from holding herself accountable, and encourages others to too. Chandler says: “Unpopular opinion: Families need to hold themselves accountable. Small children cannot drive to the store, buy an expensive device, and regulate screen time when they can’t even tie their shoes. We bought the phones, iPads, and gaming consoles.”

DOI

10.4324/9781003659969

Nearly three quarters of US baby foods are ultra-processed, new study finds

Additives the most common type of ingredient found in baby food products

George Institute for Global Health

An alarming 71 percent of grocery store baby food products in the United States are classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs), according to new research published today in the scientific journal Nutrients.1

Researchers at The George Institute for Global Health analyzed data on 651 products from the Institute’s FoodSwitch database, which includes infant and toddler food products sold in the top ten US grocery store chains. The products were assessed using the well-established NOVA classification system.

UPFs are defined as industrially made products created from highly processed ingredients and additives.2 Such products tend to be cheap, convenient and hyper-palatable, but lack the nutrients of whole foods and less processed products.

Dr Elizabeth Dunford, Research Fellow at The George Institute, and Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina said the results represent a worrying trend.

“Infancy is a critical time for shaping lifelong eating habits - introducing babies to foods that are overly sweet, salty and packed with additives can set the stage for unhealthy preferences that last beyond childhood. We also know that high UPF consumption in children is linked to heart and metabolic conditions later in life, so it’s best to try and avoid introducing them in the first place,” she said.

Additives were the most common ingredient type used in baby foods, found in 71 percent of all products. Flavor enhancers (found in 36 percent of all food products), thickeners (29 percent), emulsifiers (19 percent) and colors (19 percent) were the most commonly used additive classes, with over 105 unique additive ingredients identified in the dataset.

“We’re seeing a growing body of evidence that certain additives may harm health,” said Dr Dunford. “With emulsifiers, thickeners and stabilizers potentially altering gut function, and synthetic colors affecting behavioural outcomes in children, the high use of cosmetic additives found in US baby foods is particularly concerning.”

UPFs contained twice as much sugar as their non-UPF equivalents (14.0g vs 7.3g per 100g), and added sugars were found only in ultra-processed products. The difference in sugar content was greatest for snack and finger foods, with ultra-processed products containing 2.5 times more sugar than their non-UPF counterparts (14.4g vs 5.6g per 100g).

Sodium content was consistently higher among UPFs than non-UPFs (70mg vs 41mg / 100g). UPFs were also typically more calorie dense, in part due to the use of added sugars as well as refined ingredients, which lack essential nutrients like fiber.

Nearly all snack-size packaged products (94 percent) were ultra-processed, with full-size packages (86 percent) and pouches (73 percent) following close behind. With US consumers increasingly shifting towards more convenient infant and toddler foods, sales of pouches have grown nearly 900% since 2010.3

“The baby food aisle is increasingly dominated by ultra-processed products that prioritise convenience over nutrition. While pouches and snacks may seem practical, they are often the most processed and least healthy options,” Dr Dunford added.

The Trump administration recently released updated dietary guidelines for Americans,4 including recommendations to avoid highly processed foods for the first time, along with advice to limit added sugars and refined carbohydrates.

“Clearer labelling and specific regulation for baby foods are urgently needed to help parents make more informed choices. Until then, checking the ingredients list is one of the best ways to spot the highly processed options – if you see an ingredient you don’t recognize, then it’s probably best to put it back on the shelf,” concluded Dr Dunford.

Previous research by The George Institute revealed that two thirds of baby foods on US grocery store shelves are unhealthy according to World Health Organization guidelines, and 19 percent contain synthetic dyes.3,5

-ends-

References

Dunford EK et al. Tiny Tummies, Big Questions: Unpacking Ultra-processed Ingredients and Additives in Complementary Foods in the United States. Nutrients. 2026.
Monteiro CA et al. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762
Coyle DH et al. An evaluation of the nutritional and promotional profile of commercial foods for infants and toddlers in the United States. Nutrients. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16162782
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Fact Sheet: Trump Administration Resets U.S. Nutrition Policy, Puts Real Food Back at the Center of Health. Accessed January 2026. Available at https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-historic-reset-federal-nutrition-policy.html
Dunford EK et al. All the colors of the rainbow: Synthetic dyes in US packaged foods and beverages in 2020. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2025.05.007