Editorial pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
How Do We Measure Success in Introductory College Chemistry? Norbert J. Pienta* Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2556, United States ABSTRACT: A focus on graduation rates and simple numerical measures appears to be a new, national trend. Providing and measuring quality in chemical education is discussed. KEYWORDS: General Public, Testing/Assessment
A
with user needs and demands, ACS EI exams come in several “flavors”, namely, the traditional, conceptual, and blended versions, three varieties that help evaluate both conceptual and algorithmic learning outcomes.4 In addition, the chemical education research community has begun to amass concept inventories, such as those by Lowry-Bretz et al.11−13 to provide additional assessments. Commercial vendors14 have adaptive systems that evaluate student knowledge with the intent of providing self-help through tutorial activities, although their efficacy remains to be confirmed independently. Curricular and pedagogical approaches have begun to gain traction and to collect evidence related to their efficacy. POGIL15−17 has been developed for chemistry courses across all levels of undergraduate chemistry. At least two significant new curricula for general chemistry have been advanced: CLUE18−21 and Chemical Thinking.22,23 Even the five-decades-old traditional general chemistry stalwart has seen a bit of change in the form of the “atoms-first” approach.24 Thus, it seems that we have the tools to promote conceptual understanding and document our students’ success at learning. It is not enough to just count the people that make it through the gateway or bemoan those that do not survive. We have the responsibility to ensure the quality of their education in chemistry.
recent story on National Public Radio reported that about one-third of Tennessee high school students graduated without completing all of that state’s graduation requirements.1 The data from 2015, collected and cited by state education officials, showed that students commonly were missing foreign language and social science courses. Students often had sufficient numbers of credits but not necessarily the prescribed courses. Furthermore, this revelation comes shortly after the state reported a marked increase (i.e., ca. 1%) in high school graduation rates.2 In late 2016, Alabama’s new superintendent of education announced that Alabama’s graduation rates were inflated, and he chided the schools for giving out unearned degrees and his department for insufficient oversight.3 Both sets of circumstances are unfortunate, but perhaps we can look beyond these two cases. They bring attention to what appears to be a growing trend for both high schools and colleges: simply focusing on the numbers related to graduation rates. Should not the focus be on quality in addition to quantity? How do graduation rates relate to chemistry education? What do we know about the outcomes of high school and introductory college chemistry courses? How well do our students understand the material when they finish a course? As someone who was hired to increase student success, one of my missions has been to decrease the rate of D, F, and W (i.e., withdrawal) grades for general chemistry students at the University of Georgia (UGA). Take that DFW rate and make it smaller. That may be a reasonable goal, but it is not sufficient; our students should master chemistry knowledge and skills, advance to the next courses, and maintain what they learned in order to apply it to their individual programs of study. However, our attempts to promote success in the first semester of general chemistry are limited by confounding factors. For example, at UGA, students coenrolled in general chemistry and a precalculus course have dismal success rates. Students may arrive at college with the appropriate high school courses, but apparently without sufficient skills in those areas. These issues must be addressed concomitantly with trying to advance the students’ chemistry knowledge and skills. Clearly, this is a more complex challenge, but one also worthy of pursuit. As a community, we use traditional measures such as quizzes and tests and also have standardized tests that provide normed data from the ACS Examinations Institute (ACS EI).4 In addition, the Exams Institute directors and co-workers have published analyses of questions and their use, in addition to taxonomies for general and organic chemistry.5−10 Consistent © 2017 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Norbert J. Pienta: 0000-0002-1197-6151 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. Norbert J. Pienta is Professor and Director of General Chemistry at the University of Georgia, where he teaches and conducts research and scholarship about the teaching and learning of chemistry, devising methods, instruments, and analytics to characterize student learning and increase student success. He currently also serves as the editor-in-chief for the Journal of Chemical Education. Published: March 14, 2017 265
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00120 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 265−266
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Editorial
(21) Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W.; Cooper, M. C. Are Noncovalent Interactions an Achilles Heel in Chemistry Education? A Comparison of Instructional Approaches. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 1979−1987. (22) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona. Chemical Thinking. https://sites.google.com/site/ chemicalthinking/ (accessed Feb 2017). (23) Sevian, H.; Talanquer, V. Rethinking Chemistry: A Learning Progression on Chemical Thinking. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (1), 10−23. (24) Esterling, K. M.; Bartels, L. Atoms-First Curriculum: A Comparison of Student Success in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11), 1433−1436.
REFERENCES
(1) NPR. Tennessee Says a Third of Its High School Graduates Didn’t Meet Requirements. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/ 02/11/512624218/tennessee-says-a-third-of-its-high-school-graduatesdidnt-meet-requirements (accessed Feb 2017). (2) Balakit, M. Tennessee High School Graduation Rate Rises. http:// www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2016/10/11/tennesseehigh-school-graduation-rate-now-885-percent/91892106/ (accessed Feb 2017). (3) NPR. Alabama Admits Its High School Graduation Rate Was Inflated. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/12/19/505729524/ alabama-admits-its-high-school-graduation-rate-was-inflated (accessed Feb 2017). (4) For information on the examinations of the ACS Examinations Institute, see http://uwm.edu/acs-exams/ (accessed Feb 2017). (5) Luxford, C. J.; Holme, T. A. What Do Conceptual Holes in Assessment Say about the Topics We Teach in General Chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (6), 993−1002. (6) Schroeder, J.; Murphy, K. L.; Holme, T. A. Investigating Factors That Influence Item Performance on ACS Exams. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (3), 346−350. (7) Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 721−723. (8) Holme, T.; Murphy, K. Assessing Conceptual and Algorithmic Knowledge in General Chemistry with ACS Exams. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (9), 1217−1222. (9) Holme, T.; Luxford, C.; Murphy, K. Updating the General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (6), 1115−1116. (10) Raker, J.; Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map II: Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11), 1443−1445. (11) Bretz, S. L.; McClary, L. Students’ Understandings of Acid Strength: How Meaningful Is Reliability When Measuring Alternative Conceptions? J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (2), 212−219. (12) Brandriet, A. R.; Bretz, S. L. The Development of the Redox Concept Inventory as a Measure of Students’ Symbolic and Particulate Redox Understandings and Confidence. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (8), 1132−1144. (13) Luxford, C. J.; Bretz, S. L. Development of the Bonding Representations Inventory To Identify Student Misconceptions about Covalent and Ionic Bonding Representations. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (3), 312−320. (14) See, for example, ALEKS https://www.aleks.com/ (accessed Feb 2017) and Knewton https://www.knewton.com/ (accessed Feb 2017). (15) POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) Home Page. https://pogil.org/ (accessed Feb 2017). (16) Chase, A.; Pakhira, D.; Stains, M. Implementing ProcessOriented, Guided-Inquiry Learning for the First Time: Adaptations and Short-Term Impacts on Students’ Attitude and Performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (4), 409−416. (17) Stanford, C.; Moon, A.; Towns, M.; Cole, R. Analysis of Instructor Facilitation Strategies and Their Influences on Student Argumentation: A Case Study of a Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Physical Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1501−1513. (18) Home Page for Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything: A Fundamentals Approach to General Chemistry. http:// virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/CLUE-Chemistry/ (accessed Feb 2017). (19) Home Page for Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything. http://clue.chemistry.msu.edu/ (accessed Feb 2017). (20) Cooper, M. C.; Underwood, S. M.; Hilley, C. Z.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Development and Assessment of a Molecular Structure and Properties Learning Progression. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (11), 1351− 1357. 266
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00120 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 265−266
