Use of the Online Version of an ACS General Chemistry Exam

Chapter 12

Downloaded by PURDUE UNIV on November 25, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ch012

Use of the Online Version of an ACS General Chemistry Exam: Evaluation of Student Performance and Impact on the Final Exam Kelly M. Elkins*,1 and Kristen L. Murphy2 1Chemistry

Department, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, Maryland, 21252 United States 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

In order to help first-year chemistry students prepare for the final exam and assist the American Chemical Society (ACS) Examinations Institute (EI) in a pilot usability study of the ACS General Chemistry 2012 First-Semester Online Exam (GC12FO), Towson University students enrolled in General Chemistry I were given the opportunity to evaluate the GC12FO as preparation for the final exam during the week prior to the final exam. The GC12FO score replaced a low hour exam grade if the score improved their averages. This chapter describes the outcomes from this study piloting the web-based exam and the impact of the use of the online ACS exam on final examination performance.

Introduction Technology to aid student learning and assessment in education continues to improve – both in availability and capability. Smartphone apps for drawing chemical structures and viewing chemical information, spectral databases, videos, blogs and social media all rely upon technology, ease information access and enrich the student learning experience (1–3). Web-based homework systems are now commonplace and in use at many colleges and universities in the © 2016 American Chemical Society Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


United States, including Towson University (TU) (4, 5). While the main goal of these programs is likely to improve student learning by providing students opportunities to practice the subject followed, in many cases, by immediate feedback, instructors can also employ quiz and testing features of the products (4, 6, 7). It is well-documented that students learn by doing, and homework has long been used to encourage students to try practice problems and receive feedback (8). While students often waited a class period or more for feedback from instructors and teaching assistants with traditional paper-and-pencil homework, the on-line systems have the added benefit of offering hints, tips and feedback in real-time – whether at noon or midnight, when the students are actively engaged in the homework and learning the material (8). As a result, student learning misunderstandings could be clarified immediately and students are encouraged to practice the content early and often (4, 9). American Chemical Society (ACS) Exams are used by instructors across the country to test student content knowledge and gauge student learning in all subdisciplines of chemistry from high school to senior-level undergraduate. Unlike other exams, the exams are created by committees of educators who teach in the content area and the scores are normed based upon a nationally representative sample (10). Exams are available for undergraduate-level general, analytical, physical, organic, inorganic, instrumental, and bio-chemistry and high school chemistry as well as undergraduate placement exams and an end of undergraduate curriculum exam. Although historically ACS Exams have been given in paper-and-pencil format, exams for all subdisciplines have been launched in the online format, including general chemistry starting in 2012, and including multiple types for general chemistry such as first-term, second-term, full-year and conceptual exams as well as a laboratory exam (general chemistry lab exam) (11). There is evidence that online exams show some positive benefits as compared to paper-and-pencil exams including better distributional properties, higher internal consistency and stronger intercorrelations (12). Students who must take a cumulative final examination often turn to one or more of several tools to prepare. These include the ACS Exams Study Guides paper based tool and technology-based tools including web sites, social media, apps and databases (1, 2, 13–15). Paper study guides are available for the general, organic and physical chemistry exams (13–15). Practice exams have been demonstrated to improve student learning (16, 17) and instructors may give students old versions of exams for exam preparation. Recently, the results of a study testing the use of an organic chemistry paper-and-pencil practice exam were published (18). In that study, the students who took the practice exam, as compared to the students who did not, demonstrated improved performance on the final exam (although it was not statistically significant) (18). There was no measurable difference between these same groups when examining their performance going into the practice exam (18). In order to help students prepare for the final exam and assist the ACS Examinations Institute (EI) pilot testing the online platform that hosts the ACS General Chemistry 2012 First-Semester Online Exam (GC12FO), two sections of TU General Chemistry students were given the opportunity to take the GC12FO during the week prior to the final exam to practice the content for the final and 212 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


replace a low hour exam score if the online ACS exam score improved their course grade. Although the ACS Exam is not a practice exam but a secure, released exam, we offered the online ACS exam prior to the final in a pilot study toward the goal of improving student learning in chemistry through technology while testing the online platform and students were encouraged to take it for preparation for the final. The goal of having the students take the online ACS exam as a practice exam was to help students to utilize study time and start preparing for the final exam early. This chapter describes the usage of the online ACS GC12FO exam developed by the ACS EI with the Center for Educational Software Development of the University of Massachusetts for assessment and the impact of the use of the online ACS GC12FO in preparing the students for the final exam. We considered the performance on the online ACS GC12FO exam and deduced its impact on final exam performance for students enrolled in a General Chemistry I course at TU. TU is a Masters (Comprehensive) University (Master’s Large) by Carnegie Classification with 22,284 students in 2015. TU graduated 63 bachelor degree recipients in chemistry (8 ACS-certified) and 14 in forensic chemistry in 2015 placing TU in the top ten nationally for number of chemistry degrees awarded by institutions awarding only a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. The GC12FO results were normed based on the traditional paper and pencil results submitted to the ACS EI based on scores from 8969 students at 34 colleges and universities. As with all ACS exams, the students’ results were compared with those reported by other instructors across the nation through the comparison with the norms. TU students did not take the GC12FO as a final exam but in the week prior to the final exam so their scores may differ from the norms.

Methods The ACS Exams Institute GC12FO exam was piloted in General Chemistry I (CHEM 131) sections 10 and 11 (total n = 52) at TU during the fall 2012 semester. The students who remained in the classes (12 students withdrew through the course of the semester) after the fourth hour exam (50 minutes) were offered an opportunity to replace a low hour exam grade by taking the online ACS GC12FO exam as a practice exam during the week prior to the final exam. The GC12FO score (scaled 25 points) replaced an hour exam score only if it improved the student’s grade. Nineteen students self-selected to take the online ACS exam and the rest did not take the exam resulting in a small sample size. There was no measureable difference between the two groups based on hour exam performance. Three students who did not take the final exam and two students who did not take all of the hour exams were removed from the data set; nineteen students comprised the group that took the GC12FO exam and sixteen students comprised the group that did not. Students’ final grades in the course were based on scores from online homework (10%), four in-class, evenly-weighted, twenty-five question, multiple-choice, non-cumulative hour exams (with the lowest exam grade dropped and either with or without the online ACS exam to replace the remaining low exam grade) (72%), and a cumulative final exam (18%) covering all of the material in the semester-long course. 213 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


The web-based GC12FO exam was given at TU using university computers in proctored university labs. Security and functionality is similar to those currently employed for paper-and-pencil exams. As on paper-and-pencil exams, the software allows students to skip and revisit questions and students were allowed the use of non-programmable calculators and a periodic table. On the student-client machines, a lockdown shell prevents access to other web sites, other programs, and features including printing and copy / pasting. Users are verified using unique login and password codes and student names are always prominently displayed so that the instructor can visually verify identity. Additionally the instructor or a proctor can control account activation. The internet protocol (IP) access control rules only allow clients from specific designated locations that are reported in advance to the EI and date / time control rules only allow access to tests during specific, previously agreed upon, time periods. The means for the in-class hour exams, GC12FO exam, and final exam were compared for the two groups (those who took and did not take the online ACS exam) and an item analysis was performed. Performance on both the online ACS Exam and the final exam were scored by total correct as well as by subscore designated by content area. On the ACS Exam, these content areas were assigned using the Anchoring Concept Content Map (ACCM) for general chemistry (19–21). The final exam content areas were assigned by the authors using broad content areas: atoms, bonding, structure and function, intermolecular forces, reactions, thermodynamics, experimental (experiments, measurement and data) and visualization (digitalization including understanding to the particulate level).

Results For the GC12FO Online ACS Exam, the class mean was 41.5 questions correct out of 70 questions, or 58th percentile (standard deviation 9.5) nationally. The score distribution exhibited a normal distribution with the scores tightly clustered around the mean. This subset of students scored above the national mean of 39 questions correct (standard deviation 12) based upon data submitted by 34 colleges and universities. As expected, students with higher hour exam scores had higher averages on the online exam but there were some interesting additional observations by content area. In examining the online exam performance (as shown in Figure 1), we observed that the lower performing students (bottom 50%), as determined by the hour exam performance, performed as well as higher performing students (top 50%) in the categories of experimental and visualization (no statistical difference). On average, higher performing students scored higher in atoms, bonding, structure, intermolecular forces, reactions, and thermodynamics (statistically significant for all except the experimental and visualization questions). The results suggest that, to close the gap between the high and low performing students, there could be a need to spend more time on thermodynamics (22–25) which can be a difficult topic due to the definitions and concepts.

214 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 1. Results of the online exam performance for higher and lower performing students, based upon the hour exam performance (*statistically significant).

When examining the same content areas but with the final exam used to determine the higher and lower performing students, although not statistically significant, the lower performing students performed better than the higher performing students in the visualization area on the online exam. Similar results were observed when using the online exam to separate students by performance. One may argue that it is possible that the performance by the lower performing students in visualization could be due to the questions either being easier or less complex (26). To consider this, we examined the item performance or difficulty calculated as the fraction of students who correctly answered the item with the higher the value, the easier the item. Similarly, item discrimination is the fraction of higher performing students correctly answering the item minus the fraction of lower performing students that correctly answer the item. For discrimination, the value can range from –1 to +1 with the higher the value, the better or more discriminating of the item. Finally, it is also possible that regardless of the student performance, the exam items might inherently be easy. Therefore, we examined the objective complexity of the items. To do this, one can use a rubric that assigns the complexity of the item by experts (27). The average difficulty, discrimination and complexity for the items included on the online ACS exam are shown for each content area in Figure 2. In examining the average difficulty, discrimination and complexity of the questions on the ACS GC12FO exam as assigned (27), the values for the visualization questions are found to be similar to ratings for the questions in the other content areas. In conclusion, the visualization questions were not “easier” than the questions covering the content in the other areas. 215 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 2. The average difficulty, discrimination and complexity for the items included on the online ACS exam by content area for two sections of TU General Chemistry I.

Considering the effect of taking the online exam and subsequent performance on the final exam, we examined the difference between the higher and lower performing students. To compare their performance coming into both the online exam and the final exam, we used average Z-scores with groups separated into high and low performing groups by hour exam performance. Similarly, we then compared performance on the final exam using average Z-scores. As shown in Figure 3, we observed that the higher performing students on the online exam outperformed the lower performing students. We also observed that there was also an improvement from the hour exam to the final exam for both higher and lower performing students. When the performance by the higher and lower performing students by content area on the final exam was considered (shown in Figure 4 as the subscores for these content categories), we observed that, as expected, the higher performing students performed higher than the lower performing students on most categories. However, consistent with the online exam, the lower performing students outperformed the higher performing students on the experimental questions. (There were no visualization questions on the final to compare to the online exam.)



In comparing between the students who took the online exam and those who did not, on average, students who took the online exam outperformed the students on the final exam who did not – in all categories as shown in Figure 5 comparing performance based on content area. Specifically, student responses on qualitative questions improved most, on average, after taking the online exam. Students who took the online exam performed over 20% better, on average, compared to the other students who did not on the following topics/questions: identifying oxidizing and reducing agents, stoichiometry, atomic size trends, ionic vs. covalent bonding, geometry, calorimetry / specific heat, ionic size, comparing bond length, calculating molarity, identifying hydrogen bonding, calculating enthalpy, mass percent, gas laws, phase transitions / exothermic definition, ionization energy trends, electron configuration, identifying atoms that gain / lose electrons in redox reactions. Of the above topics, only the questions on stoichiometry, calorimetry / specific heat, molarity, and enthalpy questions required calculations. We further broke this down by thirds as shown in Figure 6 and compared this to those students who didn’t take the online exam. As shown, the middle third of the students (students who opted to take the online exam) exhibited the greatest gains by taking the online exam (statistically significant at p < 0.05 (t(12) = 3.77, p = 0.00364), although, on average, all students exhibited gains. Thus taking the online exam was beneficial, on average, to all students.

Figure 3. The average Z-score for the hour exam and final exam scores for the higher (9 students) and lower performing students (10 students) based on hour exam performance.



Figure 4. The average number of items correct for the items included on the online exam and final exam by content area for the high (12 students) and low performers (7 students), based on online exam performance.

Figure 5. The average number of items correct for the items included on the final exam by content area for students who took the online exam (19 students) and those that did not (16 students). 218 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 6. Student performance on the final exam (raw, unscaled performance) who took the online exam and those that did not take the online exam with performance for all students in each group and by thirds. (*statistically significant).

Finally, we examined the students’ performance on hour exams compared to their final exam. Again, to compare their performance coming into the final exam, we used average Z-scores on hour exams with groups separated into those students who took the online exam and those who did not. Similarly, we also then compared performance on the final exam using average Z-scores. In Figure 7, we observed that both groups of students are equivalent on hour exams (and the difference in the means of the Z-scores is not statistically significant; t(35) = 0.46, p = 0.647). However, the differences in the means approach significance (p < 0.05) the students’ performance on the final exam was considered with the students who took the online exam with a higher average Z-score (t(35) = 1.71, p = 0.096). This therefore suggest that there is a benefit from taking the online exam compared to those students who did not take it. The overall final exam results and mean hour and final exam scores for the two groups of students are shown in Table 1. Although the students self-selected into groups, the means on the in-class hour exams (after scaling) were very close and the standard deviations were similar. There was a 3.3 question (equivalent to 5.1 points based on a 100 point scale) difference between the two groups, students who took the online exam as a preparation assessment and those that did not. The final exam average for the students who took the online ACS GC12FO exam was higher than the other students by 5.1%. This is not statistically significant at p < 0.05 (t(35) = 1.21, p = 0.235). 219 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 7. The average Z-score for the hour exam and final exam scores for the students who did and did not take the online exam.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation for in class hour and final exams for students who took the GC12FO exam and those that did not In-class hour exams

Final exam

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

Students who elected to take the GC12FO online exam (n = 19)

76.1

10.6

82.1

12.2

Students who did not elect to take GC12FO online exam (n = 16)

76.5

13.9

77.0

12.6

Discussion and Conclusion Practice exams should help students to self-identify gaps in their content knowledge to determine where to focus their remaining preparation time. Students in this study were given practice exams prior to each in-class hour exam for use in self-study and self-reflection. However, these practice exams were not given under test conditions. In a recent study, there was no measurable difference in groups that used an organic chemistry practice exam to study and those that did 220 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


not (18). One difference in that study is that the practice exam was unsecured and intended as a study tool from the outset. Students also did not all take the exam under test conditions. The results of this study may suggest that taking a practice exam prior to the final exam under testing conditions helped students better prepare for the final exam by focusing their study time and effort and relieving test anxiety prior to the ‘big test’ although we did not perform a survey to test this hypothesis (28). However, since the web-based exam used in this study was secure in accordance with its intent to be used as an end-of-semester exam, students were not told which questions they answered correctly or incorrectly. Students were provided an overall score but had to infer which topics to continue studying. From an instructor perspective, participating in this study allowed data to be collected on students’ learning that could help them prepare students for the final exam and improve teaching by improving coverage and emphasis on difficult material in the same or future semesters, as determined by the content for which the students’ scores were lowest. In this study, the web-based ACS Exams Institute General Chemistry Exam was successfully tested. The web-based system developed and implemented by the Exams Institute and University of Massachusetts worked as designed and all students were able to access and complete the exam and the scores were recorded correctly. This study helped the ACS Exams Institute to evaluate the computer testing process and to use student test results to compute national norms. Students who took the GC12FO prior to the final exam to practice the material and to replace a low hour exam grade improved in their performance on the final, on average, with the highest benefits observed for the students in the middle third of the class based on exam scores. Students performed, on average, 5.1 % (equivalent to 3.3 questions) higher on the final exam if they took the online exam. The lower performing students performed relatively well in the experimental area, on average, on the online exam and the final exam and on the visualization area on the online exam. The benefits of using exams prepared by teams of educators for the ACS Exams Institute are many. ACS EI and the instructors that give these exams take the security of the exams seriously. An added benefit is that instructors do not need to write the final exam at the end of the semester, which is always a busy time. Finally, instructors receive nationally normed data for comparison. For ACS Exams that are fully in production, instructors receive performance data by content area. Ultimately greater opportunity for practice by students under exam conditions can improve performance and greater information on student performance and content knowledge can improve instruction.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Cindy Stein of University of Massachusetts – Amherst for her technical assistance for implementing the web-based exams and generating the student user codes, Theresa Jenkins of Towson University for IP troubleshooting, and the General Chemistry I students who took the exam. 221 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

References 1. 2. 3.

4.


5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

Williams, A. J.; Pence, H. E. Smart phones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 281–304DOI:10.1021/ed200029p. ChemSpider. http://www.chemspider.com/ (accessed March 25, 2016). Tierney, J.; Bodek, M.; Fredricks, S.; Dudkin, E.; Kistler, K. Using web-based video as an assessment tool for student performance in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 982–986DOI:10.1021/ed400195c. Eichler, J. F; Peeples, J. Online homework put to the test: A report on the impact of two online learning systems on student performance in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1137–1143DOI:10.1021/ed3006264. Belland, J. Comparison of Homework Systems (Four Web-Based) Used in First-Semester General Chemistry, 2009. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/ 67531/metadc9858/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf (accessed June 3, 2016). Parker, L. L.; Loudon, G. M. Case study using online homework in undergraduate organic chemistry: Results and student attitudes. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 37–44DOI:10.1021/ed300270t. Freasier, B.; Collins, G.; Newitt, P. A Web-based interactive homework quiz and tutorial package to motivate undergraduate chemistry students and improve learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1344–1347DOI:10.1021/ ed080p1344. Richards-Babb, M.; Curtis, R.; Georgieva, Z.; Penn, J. H. Student perceptions of online homework use for formative assessment of learning in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1813–1819DOI:10.1021/ acs.jchemed.5b00294. Blecking, A. Classroom Salon – An Innovative Method for Investigating Student Learning. Classroom salon reference – using online homework to identify misconceptions. In Innovative Uses of Assessments for Teaching and Research; Kendhammer, L. K., Murphy, K. L., , Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1182; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 161−180. DOI: 10.1021/bk-2014-1182.ch010 Holme, T. A. Assessment and quality control in chemical education. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 594–598DOI:10.1021/ed080p594. Reeves, J. H.; Exton, D. Developing the First Online General Chemistry Laboratory Exam. In Innovative Uses of Assessments for Teaching and Research; Kendhammer, L. K., Murphy, K. L., , Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1182; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 181−191. DOI: 10.1021/bk-2014-1182.ch011 Ployhart, R. E.; Weekley, J. A.; Holtz, B. C.; Kemp, C. Web-based and Paperand pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: Are personality, biodata, and situational judgement tests comparable? Personnel Psychology 2003, 56, 733–752DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00757.x. Eubanks, L. T. Preparing for Your ACS Examination in General Chemistry: The Official Guide; Division of Chemical Education, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.



14. Eubanks, D.; Eubanks, L. T. Preparing for Your ACS Examination in Organic Chemistry: The Official Guide; Division of Chemical Education, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2002. 15. Eubanks, L. T. Preparing for Your ACS Examination in Physcial Chemistry: The Official Guide; Division of Chemical Education, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2009. 16. Pryburn, D. T.; Pazicni, S.; Benassi, V. A.; Tappin, E. M. The testing effect: An intervention on behalf of low-skilled comprehenders in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 2045–2057DOI:10.1021/ed4009045. 17. Knaus, K. J.; Murphy, K. L.; Holme, T. A Designing chemistry practice exams for enhanced benefits: An instrument for comparing performance and mental effort measures. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 827–832DOI:10.1021/ed086p827. 18. Schelble, S. M.; Wieder, M. J.; Dillon, D. L.; Tsai, E. Organic Chemistry Practice Exam: Helping Students Gain Metacognitive Skills to Excel on the Full-Year ACS Exam. In Innovative Uses of Assessments for Teaching and Research; Kendhammer, L. K., Murphy, K. L., , Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1182; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 67−92. DOI: 10.1021/bk-2014-1182.ch005 19. Holme, T. A.; Luxford, C.; Murphy, K. L. Updating the general chemistry anchoring concepts content map. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1115–1116DOI:10.1021/ed500712k. 20. Murphy, K. L.; Holme, T. A.; Zenisky, A. L.; Caruthers, H.; Knaus, K. J. Building the ACS exams anchoring concept content map for undergraduate chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 715–720DOI:10.1021/ed300049w. 21. Holme, T. A.; Murphy, K. L. The ACS Exams Institute undergraduate chemistry anchoring concepts content map I: General chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 721–723DOI:10.1021/ed300050q. 22. Lewis, E. L.; Linn, M. C. Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. J. Res. Sc. Teach. 1994, 31, 657–677DOI:10.1002/tea.3660310607. 23. Clark, D.; Jorde, D. Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. J. Res. Sc. Teach. 2004, 41, 1–23DOI:10.1002/tea.10097. 24. Talanquer, V. Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. Int. J. Sc. Ed. 2007, 29, 853–870DOI:10.1080/09500690601087632. 25. Wren, D.; Barbera, J. Gathering evidence for validity during the design, development, and qualitative evaluation of thermochemistry concept inventory items. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1590–1601DOI:10.1021/ed400384g. 26. Crocker, L.; Algina, J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: New York, 1986. 27. Knaus, K. J.; Murphy, K. L.; Blecking, A.; Holme, T. A. A Valid and reliable instrument for cognitive complexity rating assignment of chemistry exam items. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 554–560DOI:10.1021/ed900070y. 28. Lopez, E. J.; Nandagopal, K.; Shavelson, R. J; Szu, E.; Penn, J. Self-regulated learning study strategies and academic performance in undergraduate organic chemistry: An investigation examining ethnically diverse students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 660–676DOI:10.1002/tea.21095.


Use of the Online Version of an ACS General Chemistry Exam

Recommend Documents