Communication pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Comparing College Students’ Self-Assessment of Knowledge in Organic Chemistry to Their Actual Performance Andrew G. Karatjas* Department of Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06515 United States ABSTRACT: Student self-assessment surveys were used to assess student study methods in organic chemistry courses. Surveys were given after examinations in the courses. Students that performed well on exams accurately predicted their exam scores. Students that did poorly were significantly off in their expectations.
KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Chemical Education Research, Testing/Assessment, Learning Theories, Student-Centered Learning
■
INTRODUCTION After recent performances by students on examinations in three organic chemistry courses that were below expectations, a survey was given to probe the nature of the problem. The purpose of the survey was to find out why students were having difficulty achieving what was expected of them. The main goal was to find out whether there were things that could be done to better facilitate their learning. The survey used was modified from a survey created by Perkins, which was designed as a postexamination reflection.1 These modifications were made to make the survey better apply to the courses being taught. In addition, after the first two times that the survey was used, questions that were not providing useful feedback were removed. However, no changes that substantively affect the survey were made. Students were asked to fill out the reflection to self-assess their study habits for the examination and the course in general. The goal of this exercise was to help students understand how to learn more effectively. The first item of interest was exploration of students’ level of confidence in their preparation versus their actual performance on the examinations. In an article by Kruger and Dunning,2 the authors suggest that people who are the weakest at a given skill or task hold beliefs that their own abilities are much greater than their actual abilities. They found this to be most true for those individuals that were weakest in a given area (i.e., the weaker the individual was, the more he or she inflated his or her self-assessment). Their data indicate2 that most people view themselves as being above average. This showed that those who are lacking in ability in an area do not have the metacognitive ability to recognize that fact. The questions on the survey designed by Perkins allow for exploration of the theories of Kruger and Dunning, © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
that those who are incompetent are unable to self-assess this fact. Studies of this type of self-assessment have been explored in other fields, most often psychology,2 but also statistics,3 biology,4 geology,5 economics,6 and pharmacy.7 However, there has been only limited work examining this topic in chemistry.8,9 The study by Bell and Volckmann is the only one that used surveys to assess students’ own learning in a general chemistry class. Their study indicated that the Kruger− Dunning effect was apparent on the final examinations in their general chemistry courses: high-performing students more accurately estimated their performance than did low-performing students. It was of interest to see whether this effect would continue on to a second-year course. While the data from a general chemistry course are interesting, a number of benefits stem from looking at data from a course such as organic chemistry. One reason for this is that students often already have some general chemistry experience before arriving at college. The National Center for Education Statistics reported that, in 2009, 70.4% of high school graduates had taken a high school chemistry course.10 It is unknown whether this would have an impact on students being able to self-assess their knowledge, as they would have previously taken examinations and received grades in their high school course. However, as organic chemistry is a course not commonly offered at the high school level, there should be few preconceived notions about material or previous grades based on firsthand student experience to influence student expectations. However, based on surveys of students, while a small number of students were repeating the Published: June 28, 2013 1096
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400037p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1096−1099
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
predictions also decreased (Table 3). Students with grades of C and D overestimated by similar rangesapproximately 1 full
course, no students indicated that they had taken organic chemistry at the high school level.11 Additionally, the lowest performing general chemistry students (the ones with the greatest level of misconceptions) theoretically would not be in an organic chemistry course. Therefore, it was of interest to look at this in an organic chemistry course. Additionally, in a course such as organic chemistry in which many of the students are taking the course because they would like to attend medical school, accurate self-assessment is critical. Who would want to go to a doctor who was not aware of his or her own limitations? However, this is not limited to the medical field. Success in any field often requires the ability to recognize one’s limitations to be able to improve. Practioners who are not knowledgeable yet think that they are already knowledgeable about a field are less likely to put in the effort needed to succeed and will often wonder why they have failed.
Table 3. Comparison of Students Overestimating Their Examination Scores Students Overestimating Exam Performance, %
■ ■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows the comparison of how students thought that they would do after they were done studying against the score Table 1. Comparison of Student Expectations after Studying to Students’ Actual Performance Group of Students
No. of Students
Recd an A Recd a B Recd a C Recd a D Recd an F All students
37 41 53 22 34 187
87.56 82.08 78.51 70.18 71.67 79.07
Actual Examination Grades: Mean, %
Difference of Means, %
90.49 79.46 67.21 54.68 39.80 68.36
−2.93 2.62 11.30 15.50 31.87 10.71
A A A− B+ B B− C+
Percentage
Letter grade
Percentage
96−100 91−95 86−90 82−85 78−81 74−77 70−73
C C− D+ D D− F
66−69 62−65 58−61 54−57 50−53
