In this article we present simple and feasible idea to introduce electrolysis experiments using accessible materials in the classroom. We use plastic syringes and pipettes to build different shapes of Hoffman apparatus for electrolysis. This activity was introduced to a group of 20 teachers from the Arab sector in Israel to examine their impressions about the activity and investigate the feasibility of implementing the activity in their classrooms.
Cite this paper
Hugerat, M. , Basheer, A. & Kortam, N. (2013). Usefulness of Plastic Hoffman Apparatus in Chemistry Classes: A Case Study of Its Implementation with High School Teachers. Creative Education, 4,
446-451. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47064
 Ben-Chaim, D., Joffe, N., & Zoller, U. (1994). Empowerment of elementary school teachers to implement science curriculum reforms. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 356-366.
 Elliote, J. (1999). Introduction: Global and local dimentions of reforms in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 133-141.
 Hendricks, L. J., & Williams, J. T. (1982). Demonstration of electro chemical cell properties by a simple, colorful, oxidation-reduction experiment (TD). Journal of Chemical Education, 59, 586.
 Hugerat, M. (2006). New prospects in teaching microscale electrolysis. In: M. Hugerat, P. Schwarz, & M. Livneh (Eds.), Microscale chemistry experimentation for all ages (pp. 141-155). Nazareth: Al-Nahda Press.
 Hugerat, M. (2008). New inexpensive apparatus for electrolysis. Chemical Education Journal, 11, 11-19.
 Hugerat, M., Abu-Much, R., Basheer, A., & Basheer, S. (2009). Using inexpensive to free materials to do electrolysis with all school ages. Chemical Education Journal, 13, 2.
 Hugerat, M., & Schwarz, P. (2008). Microscale electrolysis with disposable materials. Chemical Educator, 13, 7.
 Scandholtz, J. H., & Scribner, S. P. (2006). The paradox of administrative control in fostering teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1104-1117.
 Shakhashiri, B. Z. (1992). Chemical demonstrations: A handbook for teachers of chemistry. The University of Wisconsin Press.
 Singh, M., Szafran, Z., & Pike, R. M. (1999). Microscale chemistry and green chemistry: Complementary pedagogies. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1684. doi:10.1021/ed076p1684
 Thompson, J., & Soyibo, K. (2002). Effects of lecture, teacher demonstration, discussions and practical work on 10th graders’ attitudes to chemistry and understanding of electrolysis. Research in Science & Technology Education, 20, 25-37.
 Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1998). Curriculum change in science: Riding the waves of reforms. In: B. Fraster, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International book of science education (pp. 471-485). London: Kluwer.
 Wheeler, C. W., Gallagher, J., & McDonough, M. (1995). Improving school community relations in Thailand: Social forestry, education and community participation. The Asian Educational Challenge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
 Zhou, N., Habelitz-Tkotz, W., Giesler, D., El-Marsafy, M. K., Schwarz, P., Hugerat, M., & Najdoski, M. (2005). Quantitative microscale chemistry experimentation. Journal of Science Education, 6, 84.
 Zhou, R. E. (1996). How to offer the optimal demonstration of the electrolysis of water. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 786.
 Zidani, S., Kortam, N., & Hugerat, M. (2003). Teaching science through research. Journal of Science Education, 4, 35-38.