Report Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ConfChem Conference on Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction: MUST-Know Pilot StudyMath Preparation Study from Texas Joselyn Del Pilar Albaladejo,† Susan Broadway,‡ Blain Mamiya,§ Amy Petros,‡ Cynthia B. Powell,∥ G. Robert Shelton,† Deborah Rush Walker,⊥ Rebecca Weber,‡ Vickie M. Williamson,# and Diana Mason*,∇,○,◆ Downloaded via 185.2.32.67 on July 26, 2018 at 16:56:03 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
†
Department of Science and Mathematics, Texas A&M University−San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78224, United States Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203, United States § Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, United States ∥ Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas 79699, United States ⊥ Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States # Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77823, United States ∇ Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203, United States ‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes one of the invited papers to the ConfChem online conference on Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction, held from October 23 to November 27, 2017, and hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE). Combining data collected by a team of nine instructors from six Texas institutions for an IRB-approved investigation, this research correlated the arithmetic skills of first-year general chemistry students (n = 2127) to final course grades. The validated, highly reliable (KR-21 = 0.821) instrument, named the Math-Up Skills Test (MUST), evaluated the following topics using 16 questions: multiplication, division, fractions, scientific notation, exponential notation, logarithms, square roots, and balancing chemical equations. The MUST was given twice to each student: first without the use of a calculator followed by a similar, modified version with the use of a calculator. Outcomes suggest that general chemistry students’ arithmetic skills are more correlated with course grades when calculators are not used than when calculators are used. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on improving students’ mathematics automaticity. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Curriculum, Calculator-Based Learning
■
COLLEGE-READY STUDENT PROFILE A statewide study of general chemistry students in Texas revealed that students’ course grades exhibited a greater correlation to their arithmetic skills when calculators were not used than when calculators were used on a published quiz1 (see the Supporting Information). Over 95% of the 2127 students in this study matriculate from Texas schools. Given the mandated curriculum2 of the state of Texas for all grade levels, we have no doubt that arithmetic skills were taught in appropriate precollege courses, but perhaps the introduction of the calculator in lower grade levels may be stifling the automaticity of arithmetic skills needed for success in general chemistry. Current end-of-course (EOC) exams called the STAARs (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) were initially given in 2012 under the state’s 4 × 4 curriculum for grades 9−12 in these subject areas: English, mathematics, social students, and science. In 2013, House Bill 5 reduced the required EOC exams of 15 to five EOCs (English I and II, American History, Algebra I, and biology). In 2015, the passing rate on the STAARs improved to 90%. Simultaneously, SAT mean scores from 2013−2016 (see Supporting © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Information) steadily declined from 976 to 944 (all-time low over the past 30 years). Correspondingly, U.S. SAT scores fell from 1010 to 1002. The overall MUST (Math-Up Skills Test) mean was 46.0% without a calculator compared to 75.9% when calculators were used. Samples of calculator-free results indicated 66% of the students correctly multiplied two 2-digit numbers, 46% correctly divided 140/10,000, and only 23% knew the base10 log of 1000. The linear relationship between the summed MUST scores and the course averages is noteworthy in that the correlation to course grades without a calculator was higher than with a calculator, r = 0.451 and r = 0.402, respectively. With consideration of the outcomes for only the successful students (grades of A, B, or C), MUST scores were 66.1% for Chem I (n = 482), 79.9% for Chem II (n = 901), and 68.8% for Engineering Chem (n = 32). Also reported was a high percentage of unsuccessful students (grades of D or F) who had MUST scores below the respective means: Chem I Received: February 9, 2018 Revised: May 8, 2018
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00096 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
reported 73.0% with scores from 0 to 4, while Chem II reported 80.1% with scores from 0 to 8. The average successful student profile disclosed: Chem I MUST score ≥32% correct and Chem II ≥58% correct.
■
Report
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information S
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00096. Full text of the original paper with associated discussions from the ConfChem Conference (PDF) Math-Up Skills Test, versions 78 and 87, 2016−2017, without calculator (PDF) Math-Up Skills Test, versions 78 and 87, 2016− 2017, with calculator (PDF) Answered 2016−2017 test (PDF) Math-Up Skills Test, versions 78 and 87, 2017−2018, without calculator (PDF) Math-Up Skills Test, versions 78 and 87, 2017−2018, with calculator (PDF) Answered 2017−2018 test (PDF)
CONCLUSION
Success in general chemistry is a requirement for many STEM degrees. Removing calculators from the chemistry classroom at predetermined intervals disrupts what is considered standard operating procedures and provides a platform to establish new curricula to revive skills that may have become dormant over the precollege years. Reawakening mathematics automaticity may have advantages beyond the classroom, like preparing premed students for the calculator-free MCAT.
■
DISCUSSION THREAD Participants found our data supporting the lack of basic arithmetic skills to be consistent with their own observations, and many commented on the problem of their students having subpar algebra skills. Currently, we are looking into students’ calculator-free arithmetic and algebra skills to see which is more predictive of course grades. As the conversation progressed, it turned to the dual nature of studying chemistry given that both algorithmic and conceptual problem-solving skills are needed for success. Other contributors noted how automating arithmetic skills decreases cognitive load, freeing the working-memory space needed for learning new chemistry concepts. Students have the mindset that chemistry is math, but the mathematics required for success in general chemistry rarely goes beyond basic algebra skills. The use of several ehomework tools was suggested for improving students’ number-sense skills. Improvement of secondary teacher preparation was mentioned. Another concern was that adding instruction in basic arithmetic to a chemistry course diminished time needed for teaching required chemistry content. Even though mathematics skills are central to students’ success, scientific reasoning usually correlates to quantitative aptitude, so removing mathematics from general chemistry does not solve the problem. Examples of highimpact practices being employed at the discussants’ institutions to help their students succeed included extending the length of the class by spreading the course over an academic year, teaching the typical 3 h class over 4−5 h per week, and implementing flipped classrooms. However, even more important to this discussion was that students need to develop both numeracy and literacy skills for full understanding of general chemistry. We have included an updated version of the MUST in the Supporting Information, and invite anyone interested to investigate how your students perform and how these scores correlate to final course grades. Of course, we strongly encourage you to give the MUST as a calculator-free exercise, so that the students who need the most help can potentially be identified. This report summarized one of the invited papers to the ConfChem online conference on Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction, held from October 23 to November 27, 2017, and hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE).3 This paper was discussed October 26 to November 1, 2017.4 ConfChem conferences are open to the public and can be accessed at the CCCE Web site.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Diana Mason: 0000-0002-1471-8158 Present Address ○
Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305070, Denton, TX 76203−5017. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. ◆ Retired.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Hartman, JA. R.; Nelson, E. A. Automaticity in Computation and Student Success in Introductory Physical Science Courses. arXiv:1608.05006v2 [physics.ed-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05006 (accessed May 2018). The quiz is available online: http://bit.ly/ 1HyamPc (accessed May 2018). (2) Texas Education Agency. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. https://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=6148 (accessed May 2018). (3) American Chemical Society, Division of Chemical Education, Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. 2017 Fall ConfChem: Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction. https://confchem.ccce.divched.org/2017FallConfChem (accessed May 2018). (4) The MUST-Know PilotMath Preparation Study from Texas ConfChem paper and discussion are available at https://confchem. ccce.divched.org/content/2017fallconfchemp2 (accessed May 2018).
B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00096 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
