Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Gaining Insights from a Case Study of High School Student Performance in Dual-Credit College Chemistry Courses Jacob White,*,† Robert Hopkins, II,† and Denise Shockley‡ †
School of Sciences, University of Rio Grande, Rio Grande, Ohio 45674, United States Gallia-Vinton Educational Service Center, Rio Grande, Ohio 45674, United States
‡
ABSTRACT: This report describes student performance in a state-level initiative that provided first-year college coursework in chemistry to high school students. Upon successful completion of the coursework, students received both high school and college credit. In this initiative, high school teachers team taught college-level chemistry courses in collaboration with a university chemistry professor on high school campuses within proximity to the university. High school student performance was measured using an ACS standardized exam in general chemistry as well as common midterm exams and was compared with performance of traditional college students using the same assessment instruments. Course completion rates were also compared. In most cases, statistical analysis of student performance data indicates that high school students participating in the dual-credit courses developed content knowledge equivalent with measured norms for college students yet had a higher rate of course completion, suggesting that this dual-credit initiative was a viable option for increasing accessibility to college chemistry. Furthermore, broad insights were gained for addressing and potentially improving student success and course completion in response to recent shifts in funding formulas within higher education. KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General FEATURE: Chemical Education Research
■
INTRODUCTION A paradigm shift has occurred in the manner by which higher education is funded across the country. Through the Race to the Top program,1 President Obama set the ambitious goal for the United States to have the highest proportion of workers in the world with postsecondary degrees, professional certifications, and other industry recognized credentials by the year 2020.1 To combat the rising costs of higher education and ensure that the cost of college is affordable for American families, the administration has argued that state-level reforms must be a crucial component of long term improvements in college affordability, accessibility, and quality.1 Many states have already adopted measures to meet this challenge, with many more becoming increasingly focused on college completion, rather than enrollment, when determining how to fund higher education. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Indiana, Louisiana, and Tennessee have adopted higher education funding formulas that incentivize performance measures, including course and degree completion, as opposed to the traditional enrollment-based formulas.2 This is nearly unprecedented in American history. In Ohio, for example, the Ohio Higher Education Funding Commission recently released its proposed policy changes to the higher education funding formula, which included moving from 20% (current) to 50% (proposed) of state funding into degree completion, including associate degrees.3 Although science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have received a weighted subsidy in previous funding models, the newly proposed formula would, for the first time, apply STEM weights to both course and degree completion as opposed to the previous enrollmentbased formula.3 It is possible such paradigm shifts could potentially lead to concurrent pedagogical shifts as well. With © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
policymakers increasingly focused on course and degree completion, relevant student performance data, including completion rates, are needed to help educators reflect on their practices and become poised to embrace these new funding formulas. Recent state-level accessibility efforts have led to increased opportunities for high school students to earn college credits. For example, Ohio lawmakers created the postsecondary enrollment options program (PSEOP), which allows high school students the option of enrolling in college courses in an effort to satisfy their respective high school graduation requirements. Upon successful completion of the college coursework, students simultaneously earn college credits and satisfy high school graduation requirements. This, and similar programs, are often referred to as “dual-credit” models. Students participating in the PSEOP are typically responsible for their own travel to and from the college campuses, yet this program uses funds set aside by the Ohio General Assembly each biennium to pay for participants’ tuition, books, and fees. Although not required, a student may participate in the PSEOP for up to four yearsa significant incentive in terms of tuition cost as well as time. Students who take full advantage of this and other dual-credit opportunities may even graduate from high school with an earned associate’s degree or equivalent amount of college credits at relatively no cost to themselves or to their parents. The potential benefit to students of a dualcredit model is apparent. However, dual-credit models are not without their risks. If a high school student fails a college course during his or her senior year that is being taken to satisfy a graduation requirement, he or she may not graduate on time. A Published: November 8, 2013 30
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400325t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 30−36
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
were retrospectively analyzed and compared to determine whether high school students who participated in the dualcredit model performed significantly differently from the norm for traditional college students. The authors articulated the following questions to focus the analysis of the available student performance data: Was this dual-credit initiative viable with respect to course completion rates for participating high school students? Was this dual-credit initiative viable with respect to student competency measures of participating high school students? Can this initiative provide pedagogical or programmatic insights to help educators become poised to embrace new funding formulas in higher education?
high school student’s participation in a dual-credit model may also have a financially negative impact on his or her respective K−12 school district if it results in the loss of an enrollmentbased “headcount” because of the student’s participation in offsite coursework. Some school districts are also concerned that underperformance of high school students in a dual-credit course may be perceived as inadequate preparation of the student by his or her respective school. Therefore, some school districts may be less enthusiastic with respect to promoting this opportunity to its students. Also, although many colleges across the state embrace the spirit of dual-credit programs, others are less enthusiastic. Some colleges are concerned that high school students are simply not capable of meeting the demands of college curricula, particularly with respect to the STEM disciplines. Institutions with selective admissions criteria are often among those that tend to not participate in dual-credit programs. However, such programs seem to be well aligned with the mission statements of open-enrollment institutions, including community colleges, which focus on increasing college access for traditionally underrepresented groups. Not surprisingly, open-enrollment institutions and community colleges tend to participate in dual-credit models at much higher rates. Dual-credit models are an example of state-level reforms that increase college affordability and accessibility. The issue of high school student performance in college coursework needs further consideration to gain insight regarding the third component of the administration’s charge to the states quality.1 If a dual-credit model is, in fact, inadequate in promoting student learning at a college-level standard, significant efforts should be invested in revising the structure of the model. Conversely, if a dual-credit model is shown to promote student learning at a college-level standard, it should be further considered for adoption on a larger scale. The current knowledge base regarding effective dual-credit models, especially with respect to the STEM disciplines, is significantly limited. In an effort to contribute to our understanding of effective dual-credit models in STEM, this report describes the structure of one state-level, dual-credit initiative that provided high school students with college chemistry coursework as well as a retrospective analysis of student performance and completion rate data. This initiative uniquely differed from the PSEOP in that it was structured such that high school chemistry teachers team taught college chemistry curriculum on high school campuses in collaboration with a university chemistry professor. Students participating in the dual-credit coursework were able to accrue high school and college credit upon successful completion of course requirements. Because the initiative was also supported through public funds, this opportunity was afforded to students at no cost. To assess the efficacy of the dual-credit model with respect to student performance, data were measured using multiple assessment instruments, including an American Chemistry Society (ACS) standardized exam in general chemistry. Data for this ACS exam from participating high school students were compared with national norm data for traditional college students and also with data from traditional college students enrolled in sections taught by the collaborating university chemistry professor over this same time period. In addition, midterm examinations developed and administered by the university professor were also consistently used throughout both the dual-credit courses as well as in the traditional college sections taught over this same time period. Specifically, the data
■
DUAL-CREDIT MODEL During the 2007−2008, 2008−2009, and 2009−2010 academic years, state funding allowed school districts from across Ohio to develop STEM dual-credit agreements with higher education institutions. These agreements resulted in a variety of course delivery models, including online, hybrid, and team taught. Upon successful completion of the coursework, students would earn both high school credit as well as university credit. During this time, the University of Rio Grande (URG) established an agreement to offer college coursework in chemistry within three public school districts within the region: the Gallipolis City School District, the Jackson City School District, and the Vinton County Local School District. These agreements involved offering two separate chemistry courses that were team taught on the high school campus in each district by the high school chemistry teacher in collaboration with a university professor. One URG full time chemistry professor designed the curricular agreements and collaborated with participating high school teachers for all dual-credit course offerings and ensured that the course offerings met all curricular requirements for both the high school state standards in chemistry as well as the state standards for each of the two college courses. It should be noted that in Ohio, there is considerable overlap between the articulated standards at the high school and first-year college levels. To be eligible to participate, high school juniors or seniors must have maintained a GPA of 3.0 or better (out of a 4.0 scale) with no more than three absences per quarter during the previous school year. In contrast with other dual-credit programs, these criteria were not intended to be highly selective and recruit only the best and brightest students. Nearly every student (>90%) enrolled in the high school chemistry courses met these eligibility requirements and were permitted to participate in the dual-credit coursework. Three high school chemistry teachers participated in this dual-credit initiative and collaborated with the university professor to offer five sections of a general education chemistry course and two sections of an introductory chemistry course for science majors. A total of 76 high school students enrolled in these courses. All three partnering districts allowed their high school chemistry teachers to serve as adjunct instructors for the university and agreed to adopt the curriculum requirements necessary for alignment with the college courses. Both courses were structured such that the high school teachers provided instruction over the relevant topics and student learning objectives during the normal academic year. Students were required to complete one online homework assignment prior to each midterm exam using WebCT. The homework assignments were developed, monitored, and graded by the university professor, and were composed of 20 multiple choice questions 31
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400325t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 30−36
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
sections of the course that were offered to college students on the university’s main campus during the same academic years. The second course offered through this project, General Chemistry 1, is designed as a general education course for science majors and was approved under the transfer assurance guide by the Ohio Board of Regents for transferability between public institutions of higher education across the state.5 A total of 25 students enrolled in two separate sections of General Chemistry 1 during the Spring of 2009. Each section of the course was structured with a consistent curriculum, used consistent assessment instruments, and was offered exclusively to students from the partnering high school. Student learning was assessed using homework assignments, laboratory reports, three midterm exams that were each composed of 30 multiple choice questions, and a comprehensive standardized final exam developed by the ACS. The first midterm exam assessed student knowledge of measurements, classifications of matter, atomic and isotopic notation, elemental mass, nomenclature, the mole concept, stoichiometry, and solutions. The second midterm exam assessed student knowledge of the gas phase, gas laws, calorimetry, thermochemical equations, and Hess’s Law. The third midterm exam assessed student knowledge of atomic structure, quantum mechanics, electron configurations, ionic and covalent bonding models, VSEPR theory, Lewis structures, valence bond theory, and molecular orbital theory. The ACS final exam used in these two dual-credit sections was the General Chemistry, First Term, Form 2002, that was composed of 70 multiple choice questions. Each assessment instrument was administered by the university professor. These assessment instruments were used consistently within each section of the dual-credit course as well as within the same university professor’s traditional sections of the course that were offered to college students on the university’s main campus during the same academic years.
spanning the course topics relevant to each exam. The university professor would then meet with the students on each high school campus to provide a face-to-face summative review session prior to each midterm exam, using the results of the prior homework assignment as a springboard for class discussion and focus. The university professor would then return to each high school campus to administer the midterm exams, as well as the comprehensive final exam. Each dualcredit section also included a laboratory component composed of 12 experiments that were intended to build on the topics covered in the corresponding lecture, to develop analytical and preparative skills, and to develop the ability to effectively collect, analyze, and report data. The experiments that were used in the laboratory component of each dual-credit section varied between the participating high schools to accommodate each school’s equipment and facilities. Each laboratory experiment culminated in a graded student report consisting of student data and conclusions drawn from the acquired data. The laboratory component of each dual-credit section of the course was conducted on the high school campuses under the supervision of the high school teacher. In addition, students from each section of the course participated in a day-long (sixhour) laboratory session offered on the university campus under the supervision of the university professor. The grading policy was applied consistently throughout each section of each course, composed of 45% midterm exams (three exams, 15% each), 25% laboratory reports, 10% homework assignments, and 20% comprehensive final exam. With the exception of the laboratory experiments performed on the high school campuses that were graded by the respective high school teachers, all assessment activities were graded by the university professor. Letter grades for the final grade average were assigned as follows: 90−100% = A; 80−89 = B; 70−79 = C; 60−69 = D. A final grade average of ≤59% was a failing grade (F). The first chemistry course offered through this initiative, Principles of Chemistry, is designed as a general education course for nonscience majors and was approved under the transfer module course by the Ohio Board of Regents for transferability between public institutions of higher education across the state.4 A total of 51 high school students enrolled in five separate sections of Principles of Chemistry during these three academic years. Each section of the course was structured with a consistent curriculum, used consistent assessment instruments, and was offered exclusively to students from each of the three partnering high schools. Student learning was assessed using homework assignments, laboratory reports, three midterm exams that were each composed of 30 multiple choice questions, and a comprehensive final exam that was composed of 50 multiple choice questions. The first midterm exam assessed student knowledge of measurements, classifications of matter, thermochemistry, atomic and isotopic notation, elemental mass, and electron configurations for representative elements. The second midterm exam assessed student knowledge of periodic trends, classification of compounds, nomenclature, chemical equations, classification of reactions, the mole concept, and stoichiometry. The third midterm exam assessed student knowledge of the gas phase, ionic and covalent bonding models, valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory, intermolecular forces, solutions, and redox reactions. Each assessment instrument was developed and administered by the university professor. These assessment instruments were used consistently within each section of the dual-credit courses as well as within the same university professor’s traditional
■
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE DATA Students participating in the dual-credit coursework were able to accrue high school and college credit upon successful completion of course requirements. Because the initiative was also supported through public funds, this opportunity was afforded to students at no expense to themselves, their families, or to their respective school districts. To assess the efficacy of the model with respect to student performance, data were measured using multiple assessment instruments, including an ACS standardized exam for which the ACS Examinations Institute has reported a national norm for traditional college students.6 Data from participating high school students were compared with national norm data for this ACS exam and with data from traditional college students enrolled in sections taught by the collaborating university chemistry professor over this same time period. In addition, comparisons between high school student performance and college student performance were completed using midterm examinations developed and administered by the university professor. These exams were consistently used throughout the dual-credit courses as well as in the traditional college sections taught over this same time period. Completion rates for dual-credit courses and traditional courses were also calculated and compared. Specifically, the data were retrospectively analyzed and compared to determine whether high school students who participated in the dualcredit model performed significantly differently from the available norms for traditional college students. 32
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400325t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 30−36
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Many colleges and universities have differing policies regarding course completion. Some institutions accept final course grades ≥D− to satisfy general education requirements or elective requirements, whereas other institutions (as well as individual academic programs) may require final course grades ≥C− to satisfy a program requirement. A grade requirement of ≥C− is particularly common when a required course serves as a prerequisite as opposed to a standalone course. Because both definitions of course completion may likely be applied in new funding formulas, completion rates in this study were calculated separately using each final grade requirement. First, completion rates were calculated as the percentages of students who enrolled in each course who finished the course with a grade of D− or better (i.e., the number of students who passed the course divided by the number of students who enrolled in the course, multiplied by 100). Second, completion rates were calculated in the same manner using a final grade requirement of C− or better. Data for students who earned a failing grade, dropped the course, or withdrew from the institution were categorized as noncompletions. Completion rates were determined separately for each student group for each course as a mean (±the standard deviation) for the sections of each course. Using either final grade requirement, completion rates for dual-credit students were found to be significantly higher than traditional college sections for the Principles of Chemistry course. Using either final grade requirement, completion rates of dual-credit students were found to be equivalent to traditional college sections for the General Chemistry 1 course. Completion rates and results of independent samples t-tests are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and graphical comparisons of
Figure 1. Mean completion rates with respect to student group and course. Error bars depict the standard deviation. Completion rates were calculated using a final course grade ≥D−.
dual-credit students and traditional students were then compared using independent sample t-tests. The average scores for high school students enrolled in Principles of Chemistry were significantly different than the average scores for traditional college students on three of the four exams (Table 3). The dual-credit sections scored significantly higher than Table 3. Comparison of Midterm Exam Performance for Students in Principles of Chemistry assessment midterm 1
Table 1. Comparison of Course Completion Rates for Students Earning ≥D− in Either Principles of Chemistry or General Chemistry 1 course
traditional sections, mean ± SD
dual-credit sections, mean ± SD
Principles of 62.7 ± 4.3 (n = 3 98.7 ± 3.0 (n = 5 Chemistry sections) sections) General 74.6 ± 7.0 (n = 3 87.3 ± 2.3 (n = 2 Chemistry 1 sections) sections) a
midterm 2 midterm 3
results, t-testa
p values
14.134
