0
ACHIEVEMENT IN FIRST YEAR COLLEGE CHEMISTRY RELATED TO HIGH SCHOOL PREPARATION' ROBERT C. BRASTED University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota2
A
PROJECT was initiated by the High School Liaison Committee of the Minnesota Section of the American Chemical Society, the ultimate objective of which was to give recognition to a selected number of high school chemistry teachers in the state. It was apparent that the achievement of students from certain high schools in the state in college chemistry was well above the average, that a relatively high percentage of students from certain high schools were entering one or another of the sciences as major fields of interest, and that the high school chemistry teachers of these high schools were exerting a strong and favorable influence on these students. The committee has long been of the opinion that recognition should be given such teachers. As a means of obtaining quantitative data on which a partial evaluation of teaching could be based, the heads of the chemistry departments in all colleges and universities within the area described by the Minnesota Section were contacted and a request made for their cooperation in the collection of data. The number of students enrolled in the second semester or quarter of first year college chemistry was determined and a sufficient number of cards sent to each institution for each of these students. The cards were filled out by each student, collected by the teacher, and returned to the High School Liaison Committee. Six items were included on the 3 X 5 data cards:
1. Name of your high school and its location. 2. Name of your high school chemistry teacher. 3. Date of completing high school chemistry. 4. Name of college or university you are presently attending. 5. Your grade in first semester (or quarter) of college ohemistry. 6. Are you planning on a major in the sciences?
I n this survey all general college chemistry students in their second semester or quarter in fifteeninstitutions contributed data, including liberal arts colleges, Catholic colleges, universities, state teachers colleges and junior colleges. Data were obtained from nearly 1400 stu-
' Presented in part before the Summer Institute for Teachers of College Chemistry, Northcentral Session, 1955, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; the Summer Institutes for Tesohers of College and High Sohool Chemistry, Eastern Session, 1955, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York; and the North Central Teachers Association of Wisconsin, Science and Mathematics Section, Wausau, Wisconsin, March, 1957. The author is indebted to the teachers of chemistry in the colleges and universities of the State of Minnesota for their cooperation in collecting data for this study, as well as the High School Liaison Committee of the Minnesota. Seotion of the American ChemicalSociety.
dents in this survey and from another 1100 students in a supplementary study, reported in a later section of this study. I n practice, then, this survey is not based upon a sampling technique since an effort was made to obtain data from every student in the fifteen colleges and universities. On the occasion of the May, 1957, meeting of the Minnesota Section of the American Chemical Societv, ". a dinner was held to honor six high school science teachers chosen for the excellence in the teaching of high school students and their success in directing students into scientific areas. As mentioned earlier, data herein reported were used as a preliminary screening of many hundreds of possible candidates. The final choice of six was understandably a difficult problem. Much weight was placed on the performance in science fair programs, activities of the science clubs, as well as recommendations by college and university teachers and unsolicited comments made by students. The recipients of the awards (a framed hand-lettered Old English script certificate, a cash award, and a subscription to the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION) are listed. Karl Asberg, Mankato High School, Mankato, Minnesota Walter Banner, Rochester High Sohaol, Rochester, Minnesota Theodore Molitor, Alexander Ramsey High School, Rosevillc Public Schools, Minnesota Robert Molkenbur, Central High School, St. Paul, Minnesota Carl Pearson, Southwest High School, Minneapolis, Minnesota Martin Thames, Bemidji High School, Bemidji, Minnesota
Certain of the data derived from the cards was obviously useful for a general survey of the achievement of college chemistry students based upon a number of factors. These data are reported in the following tables and should provide high school counselors with "ammunition" for proper preparation in chemistry, physics, and mathematics before entering the college or university of their choice. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the students based TABLE 1 Percentage of Studants in Second Half of First Year College Chemistry Related to Geographical Origin of High School Training
With highschoolchemistry, Yo Urban Metropolitan Rural-consolidated Without high school c h a i 8 t y , % Urban Metropolitan Rural-consolidsted JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
upon the geographic location of their high school. The term urban is used to denote cities and towns of approximately 204,000 population. Metropolitan refers to an area of over a million population and rural-consolidated refers t o the areas of low population density with, in general, small high schools. ACHIEVEMENT IN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY RELATED TO PREPARATION IN HIGH SCHOOL
Parochial High School Training Cmnpared with That i n Public High Schools. I n the course of the survey it became evident that students with preparation in parochial high schools performed at a higher level in the college chemistry courses than those from public schools. Table 4 hears out this conclusion. The number of students from the private high schools contributing data is very small compared to those from parochial.
Table 2 includes the performance of students with and without high school chemistry. The very marked differences in performance are obvious irrespective of geographic area.
TABLE 4 Type of High School Related to Achievement in College Chemistrv
TABLE 2 Geographic Origin of High School Related to Achievement (Students With High School Chemistry Compared to Those Without High School Chemistrv)
B
C
D
Zndez*
35.3 32.7 34.7 34.2
37.1 36.7 35.8 36.2
9.1 10.6 12.0 10.9
2.63 2.69 2.56 2.60
A W i t h high school chemistq, 7, Urban 18.5 Metropolitan 20.0 Rural-consolidated 17.5 Over-all 18.7 Withoul high school chemistry, %
Based upon 4for A, 3for B, etc.
The observation is not new, neither is it unconfirmed by others, that the performance of the student with high school chemistry is higher than the student without the same training. The primary point of contention now seems to he whether students with this preparation are inherently of a better grade or whether the preparative work in high school has led to better achievement in college chemistry. The student with sufficient intellectual curiosity, the initiative, or with proper counseling, to take the chemistry course in high school has in general also taken high school physics and more than the minimum requirements in mathematics and is thusin a far more favorable position than the student who for one or more of the above reasons has not taken the preparative work. Data in tables which follow provide some answers to these points of contention. Achievement Based, U p m the Size of the High School. A further breakdown of the data is included in Table 3. The size of the high school is indicated in the size of the graduating class. The data indicate that students from the small high schools with preparation in high school chemistry perform as well (or better) than those from the large high schools where supposedly one should find better physical facilities.
Parochial Grade, 7" and pn'vate
Ruralconsolidated
Metropolitan
Performance i n College Chemistry Related to Date of Completing High School Chemistry. The large number of data cards surveyed formulated an interesting correlation between achievement in college chemistry and the year of completing high school chemistry. Rather surprising indices are noted in Table 5. The two-year period 1951 and 1952 is particularly unusual. A division is again made bmed upon geographic location of the high school. TABLE 5 Date of Completing High School Chemistry Related to Achievement i n College Chemistry (First Semester or Ouarter) Year
0un;ell indez
U~ban metropolitan
Ruralconsolidated
A survey of "outrof-state" students (from seven states) both with and without high school chemistry was made. The indices for those with high school chemistry were comparable with "in-state". The indices for those without high school chemistry were again appreciably lower. COMPARISON OF GRADING PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF COLLEGES
The possibility existed that grading practices varied
TABLE 3 Achievement of Students (With High School Chemistry) i n General College Chamistry Related to Size of High School Grade, %
BO
Ouerall
563
TABLE 6 Comparison of Students from Catholic High Schools i n the University of Minnesota with Students of Similar Background in Catholic Colleges Grade, %
U.of Minn.
Catholic colleges
A B C D Index
16.3 36.7 40.8 6.2 2.63
22.3 32.3 38.2 7.2 2.72
in different types of colleges and universities and that these differences might account for the higher index of students from parochial schools. Table 6 gives a. comparison of students in the University of Minnesota taking college chemistry with preparation in parochial schools with students in Catholic colleges with similar training. In both instances the performance is above the average of all those with high school chemistry (index of 2.52). Tahle 7 gives an additional breakdown to permit comparisons of grading practices in different types of institutions of higher learning.
drawal before the end of the quarter with marginal t o failing performance, the W is an approved withdrawal but, again in this discussion, infers that the student is doing marginal to failing work. The importance of proper preparation is again most emphatically indicated. A discouragingly large percentage do not make a successful effort to complete the first quarter of work due to inadequate preparation. PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS PREPARATION RELATED TO ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY
The same body of students in the C course was used to evaluate achievement in college chemistry based upon whether they had or had not had a course in high school physics. The data are given in Table 9. Although the differences depending on preparation are not as great as with the chemistry preparation, they are well enough defined to point out the benefit of preparation in both chemistry and physics. Two additional studies were made permitting the comparison: students with high school chemistry but no high school
TABLE 7 College Classification Related t o Achievement i n College Chemistry Grade, % A B
C D
Index
U.of Minn.
Catholic colleges
Liberal wts colleges
Slate Tehm & JI. colleges
17.0 30.5 37.5 15.0 2.52
21.3 38.1 32.5 8.1 2.72
14.3 39.9 41.4 9.4 2.54
15.3 33.7 38.4 12.6 2.52
Ow-all 16.7 32.9 37.5 12.9 2.52
TABLE 8 Achievement i n First Quarter College Chemistry Based Upon High School Chemistry Preparation Grade, % A B C D F&Z W
Courses A+B+C With Without 14.0 4.4 13.6 27.4 31.1 34.1 15.4 13.2 11.8 5.2 6.1 23.7 (20.2%) (79.8%)
Course A With Without 17.6 0 25.0 16.9 32.3 38.9 16.2 11.1 2.5 5.6 6.4 27.8 (91.9%) (8.1%)
SUPPLEMENT TO THE STATE-WIDE SURVEY
A supplementary survey was conducted involving some 1100 University of Minnesota students. Three courses of instmction in general chemistry are offered and with no subdivision based upon high school chemistry preparation. The data are recorded in Tahle 8 (et seq.). Course A is the professional course for chemists and chemical engineers, the great majority of whom have had good preparation in high school chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Course B is offered for all other engineering students. Course C includes students in all other categories. At the foot of each column in Table 8 the percentages of students in each classification are noted. It is worthy to note that about as many enter the engineering curricula (Course B) without high school chemistry as enter the more general curricula (represented by the C course). Of greatest interest are the percentages receiving the F and Z grades and W grade. The F is obvious, the Z here represents nonapproved with564
Course B With Without 4.5 11.3 29.6 41.2 40.9 36.2 15.9 5.6 6.8 1.9 2.3 3.8 (78.4%) (21.6%)
Course
C With 13.4 24.2 34.1 14.3 7.3 6.7 (76.4%)
Without 4.8 9.0 27.7 15.7 13.9 28.9 (23.6%)
TABLE 9 Achievement i n First Quarte. College Chemistry Related to Preparation i n High School Physics (C Course Only) Grade, % A B
C D F&Z W
With
Without
Overdl1
13.4 22.8 34.3 13.8 8.1
7.8 16.6 32.9 15.6 12.9 14.2
11.4 20.6 32.7 14.6 8.8 11.9
7 6
physics; and students with high school physics but with no high school chemistry. These data are included in Tables 10 and 11. Of the 1100 students only 190 fell into these categories. It is obvious that the high school chemistry preparation has been the most beneficial. A final survey was carried out to correlate the achievement in college chemistry with high school mathematics preparation. The courses used were B JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
TABLE 10 Achievement in First Quarter College Chemistry of Students with High School Chemistry but with No High School Physics
% Grade
Grade
% Grade, average of all students with high school chemistry
TABLE 11 Achievement in First Quarte~of Collage Chemistry of Students with High School Physics but with No High School Chemistry
% Grade
Gmde
O/o, Grade average of all students with high school physics
TABLE 12 Relationship between High School Mathematics Background and Achievement in First Quarter of College Chemistry Grade, %
A B C D
F&Z W
Chemistry B and C 8 cou~sea
8.0 19.4 30.0 15.9 10.5 16.2 (46.9%)
Chemistry B B courses
10.5 39.0 35.4 8.1 2.9 4.1 (84.7%)
Chemistry C
d eoursps
15.1 24.4 38.7 12.5 5.8 3.5 (44.0%)
ties are not in "the high school preparation business." Sufficient evidence has been presented here as to the need for high school chemistry, physics, and adequate mathematics courses (in number and quality) for high achievement in college chemistry. Substandard courses, often presented in college for the poorly prepared students and usually given the same credit and standing as the more exacting courses, may be eliminated when greater uniformity in preparation is given to all students entering college chemistry. Some remedial work will still have to be presented considering existing conditions of high school preparation; however, the writer does not feel that the solution is through substandard courses. Where the teaching faculty is available, the use of extra tutorial-type sessions for the students with submarginal preparation serves as a partial answer to the problem. Such sessions are no more necessary, however, than other sessions for the select class of students who either through very high caliber preparation or through native intellect and intelligence are ready for advanced and more challenging material. The data cards indicate that students who have either the intellectual curiosity, proper counseling (or both) to take chemistry and physics courses in high school also take more than the minimum requirements in mathematics. Such students may then be a more select group and thus show favorably in the higher grade percentages and indices. Although it cannot be claimed that the student retains factual knowledge gained in the preparatory courses in the exact sciences, it is obvious that these courses greatly influence his accomplishment in college chemistry. It is further a reasonable assumption that there would be fewer withdrawals, failures, and submarginal grades in college chemistry if all students were properly counseled into the preparatory courses in chemistry, physics, and mathematics.
