Variables Correlating with Student Success in Organic Chemistry Richard Steiner and John Sullivan University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 841 12
We have endeavored to develop a profile of the successful student in oreanic chemistrv. A auestionnaire was collected from all the students taking t h e final quarter of the three quarter organic chemistry sequence. This form was completed by the students during the second week of class (to avoid as many "adds and drops" as possible). We requested information in six general categories: 1) general demographic data (sex, age, major field of study, year
in eolleee): comwte on ahility ! A C T srorrs~; rdevnnt t,arkground previous scirnrr roursrs~: nmparison frhcrnirtrs lo ot her courbrs for prefermrr, difticulty, and importance; 5) the perceived attitudes toward the self when studying chemistry; 6) the perceived attributes of the field of chemistry 21 3) 41
The questionaire was designed to force students to make definitive choices as opposed to using a value scale. Thus, students were asked t o orioritize math. ohvsics.. hioloev. ". chemistry, and English for difficulty, importance, and preference and were asked to choose descrintors that best reflected their attitute to (Table 1) and perception of (Table 2) chemistry. Each descriptor was counted as a separate variable and coded for analysis as either used or not used. The 64 res~ondentswere divided into two erouns: Grouo 1received a knal grade of C or less (iucludin~studeutswhb filled out the questionnaire but dropped the course because of poor performance), and Group 2 achieved a C + grade or better. There were 34 students in the first group and 30 in the second. We then ran T-tests on the 76 vaiiahies for the two groups using the SPSS T-Test for Independent Groups Program. Of the 76 variables on the questionnaire, 8 were of statistical value W a i l probability less than 0.055). The data for these variables appear in Table 3. The most surprising result was that Group 1 reported having had more math and more previous chemistry. Four different items (previous course in elementary algebra, intermediate algebra, college algebra, and trigonometry) all received statistically greater response from Group 1.In fact, the most significant seoaration occurred in the resoonse to college algekra. The very slightly higher avowed preference for math. and a better oerformance on the math ACT corroborate the surprising math superiority of the poorer students in oreanic chemistrv. We believe the math and nriur chemistw data-me supportive of the hypothesis that different cognitive skills are required for organic chemistry from those practiced by students in math and introductory chemistry. Students come into the oraanic seauence believing that the old methods will continue towork, &d fail to makethe cognitive adjustment necessaw. The other major differences between the two groups is their attitude toward chemistry and their perception of the field. From Table 3 we see that the upper &up perceived chemistry as elegant while the lower group found it strange and were worried and anxious in their approach to the subject. This difference in approach and perception is further demonstrated by the eight additional variables (with a %tail probability of 1072
Journal of Chemical Education
less than 0.11) shown in Table 4. The upper group is characterized by a preference for studying chemistry (as opposed to other fields), an avowed interest in the field, a perception that chemistrv is useful and a confident a .o.~ r o a c hto the studv of chrmistj. The lower poup is depressed hy chemistry and.has a havhaeard ao~roachto the field. Thev are also less Drone to learn by appliing principles. The other learning styles (memorization, rehearsal, drill, and understanding principles) did not differentiate between the two groups. In addition to these factors which separated the upper and lower halves of the class, four variables (Table 5) are interesting in that they do not show significant differences between the groups. Both felt chemistry was important to their career and described chemistry as helpful and difficult. The ratio of males to females was vhtuallythe same in both groups. The fact that 10 of the variables that differentiated between Table 1. Protlle ot Self Attitude ot Students In Chemistry 333 (3rd Quarter Oraanlc) Total %
Lower Group % of 34
Upper Group % of 30
Dlscre~sncv
Interested (+) Wonied (-) Anxious I-) Organized (+) Methodical (t) Confident (t) Enthusiastic (+) Ambivalent (-) Disorganized (-1 H a w (+I Tenacious (+) Depresed (-) Energetic (+) Haphazard (-) Powerless (-) Bored (-\
Table 2. Prollle of Perceptions 01 Chemistry Total Sb
Useful (+) Stimulating(+) Rational (+) Puzzling (-) Helpful (+) Bland (-) Elegant (+) Boring (-) Snange (-) Lively (+) Obnoxious (-) Repugnant (-)
70 41 41 39 38 18 14 11 11 8 3 3
Lower Croup Sb of 34
Upper Croup % of 30
D~SEWD~~N
Table 3. Standard Error
F Value
ELEMENTARY ALGEBRA Croup 1 1.4063 1.012 Group 2 1.0345 0.186
0'17' 0.034
29.67
INTERMEDIATE ALGEBRA Group 1 1.5484 1.028 Group 2 1.1379 0.351
0.185 0.065
8.57
COLLEGE ALGEBRA 1.9394 0.998 Croup 1 Group 2 1.4074 0.694
0.174 0.134
2.07
TRIWNOMETRY G-oup 1 1.7576 Group 2 1.3793
0.969 0.494
0.169 0.092
3.85
CHEM ELEGANT 0.0588 Group 1 Group 2 0.2333
0.239 0.430
0.041 0.079
3.24
CHEM STRANGE Group 1 0.2059 Group 2 0.0000
0.410 0.000
0.070 0.000
0.00
CHEM ATT ANXIOUS 0.4412 0.504 Group 1 Group2 0.1333 0.346
0.086 0.063
2.12
CHEM ATT WORRIED - Group 1 0.5000 0.508 Group 2 0.2667 0.450
0.087 0.082
1.27
Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Varlables Related to Course Performance
Table 4.
F Value
CHEM A n HAPHAZARD Group 1 0.0882 0.288 Group 2 0.0000 0.000
0.049 0.000
0.00
CHEM ATT DEPRESSED 0.0882 0.288 Group 1 0.000 Croup 2 0.0000
0.049 0.000
0.00
CHEM ATT CONFIDENT Group 1 0.1176 0.327 Group 2 0.3000 0.466
0.056 0.065
2.03
CHEM USEFUL Group 1 0.6176 Group 2 0.8000
0.493 0.407
0.085 0.074
1.47
CHEM PREFERENCE G-oup 1 3.3529 1.495 Group 2 4.0333 1.450
0.256 0.265
1.06
CHEM COMPARiSON INT Group 1 4.6471 1.495 Group 2 5.2333 1.331
0.256 0.243
1.26
LEARN .- STYLE . -- APP PRINCIPLES Group 1 2 6471 0917 0 157 Group 2 3 000 0 643 0 117
2.03
Mean
Standard Deviation
T
Value
Degrees of Freedom
2-Tail Pmb.
T Value
Degrees of Free&
2-Tail Rob.
Variables Related to Course Performance
Standard Error
Variable
?-Tail Prab.
?-Tail Prob.
the upper and lower groups involved a student's perception of chemistry and the attitude of the individual as he or she approaches chemistry led us to define two additional variables. The descriptors for the student's attitude toward the study of chemistry were rated as positive or negative (marked (+) or (-) in Table 1). The student's negative responses were subtracted from the positive responses to give a score for a new variable called CHEMATT. The same procedure was carried out for the descriptors of a student's perception of chemistry (marked (+) or (-) in Table 2), and the result was a value for the variable CHEMPER. When Group 1 or Group 2 students were compared on the basis of the CHEMPER and CHEMATT scores, Group 2 was characterized hy a much more
T Value
Degrees of Freedom
?-Tail Prob.
T Vaiue
Degrees Freedom
2-Tail Rob.
positive perception of chemistry and attitude wward studying chemistrv. The CHEMATT com~arisonturns out to be the largest drfference between the twb groups (Table 6). From the 78 variables considered by this study it appears that the best predictor for success in organic chemistry is a positive attitude toward the study of chemistry, followed closely hy a positive perception of the field. This finding is particularly relevant in light of the many recent editorials and papers discussing the need for creating a better image for chemistry majors among the general public. It also means that chemistry educators a t all levels should endeavor to instill a sense of importance and relevancy to the field. While it is true that this study made no attempt to deterVolume 61 Number 12 December 1984
1073
Table 5. Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Varlables Related to C w r r e Performance
F Value
2-Tall Prob.
Value
0.59
CHEM DIFFICULTY Group 1 4.2121 1.474 Group 2 4.0000 1.363
:
1.17
0.678
CHEM IMPORTANCE 1.478 Grwp 1 4.2353 Group 2 4.2414 1.300
0.241
OX4
1.29
0.491
SEX Group 1 1.2941 Grwp 2 1.2667
0.462 0.450
:
1.06
0.884
CHEM HELPFUL Group 1 0.3235 Grouo 2 0.4000
0.475 0.498
0.081 0.091
1.10
0.765
Table 6.
T
-0.02
0.24
-0.63
Degrees of Freedom
2-Tali Prob.
T Value
Degrees of Freedom
%Tail Prob.
60
0.560
0.59
59.63
0.556
61
0.986
60.93
0.966
62
0.811
61.39
0.611
62
0.532
-0.63
60.15
0.533
Degrees of Freedom
%Tail Rob.
-0.02
0.24
Varlables Relaled t o Course Performance
Standard Deviation
Standard Enor
F Value
2-Tail Wob.
T Value
Degrees of Freedom
2-Tail Prob.
T Value
CHEMPER 0.7941 Grwp 2 1.7667
1.639 1.569
0'315 0.266
1.37
0.388
-2.26
62
0.027
-2.26
61.94
0.026
CMMAIT Group 1 -0.2647 Group 2 1.2667
1.974 1.680
0.339 0.307
1.38
0.381
-3.32
62
0.002
-3.35
61.93
0.001
Variable
Mean
Orwp 1
mine the cause of the negative perception and attitude of the poorer performing students we believe the findings outlined above are relevant. Though it could he argued that students' attitudes in the third quarter of a sequence are biased by earlier experiences, it could also be argued that it is impossible to obtain a "pure" sample. Students entering the first quarter of organic chemistry can draw on both their experiences in the
1074
Journal of Chemical Education
introductory course and the comments i f friends or general rumors floating on campus. Furthermore, we believe an awareness among teachers that many students are impeded in their progress by anxiety and negative perceptions of chemistry can lead to more effective teaching. Such modifications in approach should help students learn organic chemistry regardless of the cause of the anxiety.
