Edited by: JAMES L. EALY,JR.
advanced placement
The Hill School Ponstown. PA 19464 and
RONALD 0.RAGSDALE Dept. of Chemistry University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Project Advance and the Advanced Placement Program A Comparison of Students' Performance on the AP Chemistry Examination Joseph Mercurio,' Leo Lambert, and Rodger Oesterle Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13210 Syracuse University Project Advance, established in 1973, is one of the first high school-college cooperative programs in the United States through which college courses, taught in high schools by high school faculty, can be taken for college credit. The courses, identical in every important respect to those taught to students on the Syracuse University campus-same syllabus, textbooks, assignments, examinations, and grading criteria-are taught by carefully selected high school facultv members whose credentials have been reviewed and approvld by faculty committees from the appropriate Svracuse Universitv departments. T o aualifv . . t o teach a uni&sity course, high school faculty members must have extensive teachine experience and credentials in the content area and must atteid aspecial summer workshop (usually five to eight days) conducted by the Syracuse University faculty member responsible for the course on the main campus. Upon successful completion of the workshop, teachers are appointed adjunct instrictors of Syracuse university. T o retain the appointment, teachers must teach the Svracuse course a t least .. oncr every two years and attend an in-srrvice seminar in the suhiect area sponsored bv. Svrarusr University each fa11 and . spring. Once implemented, the courses are carefully monitored by the Syracuse University faculty and Project Advance administrative staff, cooperating with the high school teacher to ensure that standards in the high school sections of the course are comparable to those for the same course taught on campus. At least once each semester Syracuse University faculty members and Project Advance administrative staff visit each class. checkine - papers, . . . laboratorv manuals. and other producgof instruction for consisten& of academic standards; talk with the teacher and with the students about the program; and discuss community response and the overall administration of the program with high school administrators. In addition to in-serviceseminars and site visits, frequent contact is maintained with the high school. Over the past eleven years, nea;ly 500 colleges and universities have recognized Syracuse University courses completed through Project Advance by awarding degree credit and/or exemption from enrolling in a similar course. Some of these have awarded credit andior exemption only after reviewing a ~ortfolioof tests and instructional materials, while still others have reserved awards until the student has completed an advanced college course successfully a t their institution. A small number of schools also offer the possibility of degree credit if the student can attain an acceptable grade on a proficiency examination administered by the appropriate academic department. Carespondinga u t h a (Roject Advance. 113 Euclid Ave.. Syracuse,
A few colleees. on the other hand. have a d o ~ t e da blanket policy that c&ege-level courses completed in a high school setting will not be recognized forcredit.'l'heone pussibleexception to this policy is the Ad\,ancrd l'larement Program (AP) of the College Entrance Examination Board. Largely brcause it is a stnndardized measure of academic achievement, some college officials look ~rimarilvto the Al' examination in conside& degree credii for collkge courses taken in high school. The Problem Although the Syracuse courses taken through Project Advance do not mirror curriculum tested bv the AP program, in the interest of helping worthy Project Advance students obtain recognition a t institutions that base credit decisions on AP examination results, a study was conducted to compare these two programs. The study which follows is an attempt to answer the following questions: First, how well do Project Advance students fare on the AP examination when compared with AP candidates who have participated in the AP program? And second, what is the relationship between the Syracuse grade and the AP examination grade? The Syracuse University course chosen for comparison with the AP Droeram was Chemistrv 106116.107-117. which involves t& lemesten of lecture ifor six credits) and laboratory (for two credits). In this course, students explore basic chemical concepts and acquire a foundation for future academic pursuits. The course satisfies the general chemistry requirements for a variety of pre-professional programs includine health-related ~rofessions.biolom, -.. chemistrv, . . en& neering, and physics. Course lectures cover the following 16 units: matter, kinetic molecular theory, and changes in state; electronic skucture of atoms: chemical bonding and molecular structure: chemical change; oxygen; hydrogen; solutions; acids, bases, and salts; redox reactions and the electrochemical series; the halogens; the sulfur family; the nitrogen family; chemical equilibrium; electrochemistry; metals; and transition metal complexes. Laboratory experiences develop the basic skills required for future work in advanced chemistry courses. The course's major text is "Chemistry" (5th ed.) by Charles E. Mortimer, published by Van Nostrand. The Syracuse chemistry course places greater emphasis on laboratory experiences and descriptive chemistry, and less emphasis in the area of nuclear chemistry, thermodynamics,
-
The editors welcome contributions by both AP teachers and the r e cipients of AP students. Contribution which include the following: the nature of AP chemistry. the advantages and disadvantages of an AP course, for whom is AP chemistry designed, and how AP students perform in subsequent chemistry classes are particularly encouraged.
NY 13210).
Volume 61
Number 4
April 1984
377
and equilibrium than the Advanced Placement Exam. Project Advance students who took the AP examination in chemistry were advised to study in these three areas, either on their own or with the help of their teachers. Project Advance students who participated in this study did so voluntarilv hut had to have an overall made of a t least C in the ~ y r a c u s ecourse prior to taking the examination. Teachers and students knew a t the start that they were to take part in the study. Project Advance reimbursed students for the cost of the AP examination which was administered in May 1982.
XP
The Sample Thirty-five (32%) out of a possible 120 Project Advance students took the AP examination in chemistry. This sample consists of a slightly higher percentage of students with course grades of A or B, and fewer with a course grade of C, than for the Project Advance chemistry classes as a whole. The average letter grade for the total enrollment of Project Advance chemistry students was C+. That for the sample who participated in the Research Project was B. Results
Table 1. Dislribution of AP Examination Grades in Chemlstry for Proiect Advance Students and AP Candidates. Msv 1982 AP Exam
AP Ratina
Gradea
Exhemeiy well qualified Well qualified Qualified Possibly qualified No recommendation
Project AP Advance Candidates ( % of studems at AP Exam orade levell 11.4 31.4 34.3 14.3 8.6
5 4 3 2 1
Total Number of Students Mean Grade Standard Deviation
13.6 19.0
35.3 19.3 12.8 9,476 3.01 190
35 3.20 1.11
A" A? examination grade 013 normally is me minimum scare accepted by colleges and univerritie~in granting placement or credit.
Table 2.
Project Advance Course Grades and AP Examlnation Grades in Chemistry
Project Advance Grade
Advanced Placement Examination Grade 5
A
R
1
1
Distribution of AP Examination Grades
In a hreakdown of scores, the percentages of Project Advance students attainine erades of 5.4. .. .. . . 3.2.. or 1on the AP chetnistry vxnmination were comparable to the percenrage.; for AP chetniitrv candidates. and I'roiect .4dvencr students attained slightl; higher me& grades.i Overall, 77.1% of the Project Advance chemistry students earned a grade of a t least 3 on the AP chemistry examination compared with 67.9% of AP chemistry candidates nati~nally.~ Table 1shows this hreakdown. Relationship between Project Advance and AP Examination Grades
Eighty-nine percent ofproject Advance students with a final letter grade of B or above in the Syracuse chemistry course earned a grade of a t least 3 on the AP Examination. Fifty-four percent earned a grade of a t least 4. Fourteen percent earned a erade of 5. These results show that Project Advance students who did well in the Syracuse chemistry courses also tended to do well on the AP Chemistry Examination. Project Advance students with a grade of C in the Syracuse course did not do as well as on the AP exam. We suspect this was because these students were less motivated than their academically superior peers, hence.. thev. did a Door ioh of nrenarine themselves on their own in those areas tesied on'the AP Examination hut not covered in the Svracuse course. i.e.. thermodvnamics., eouilihrium, and nuclear chemistry. cbnveriations with these students' teachers tended to confirm this suspicion. Table 2 compares the course grades earned by Project Advance students in Svracuse chemistrv with their AP Examination grades.
.
-
.
Summary This study compared the performance of Project Advance chemistry students with AP candidates nationally on the AP Examination in chemistry. It was conducted to help answer auestions raised hv a smail number of colleees and universities about the compar"ahility of these two as valid measures of academic achievement. Several important points have been made: 1) Project Advance chemistry students scored slightly above the ~
~
A course designed for teachers of Advanced Placement Chemistry will be offered a t The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, from June4 to22.1984. The purpose of thecourseis to help prepare high school chemistry teachers to teach advanced placement chemistry. It would also he an excellent course for teachers of introductorychemistry who desire to broaden their background. The course will consist of lectures on selected topics by college professors, laboratory experiments, assigned reading and problems, and explanations of the advanced placement curriculum and test. For further information write to: J. J. Lagowski, Department of Chemistry, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
Journal of Chemical Education
~
~~~~
~~
Mercurio, J., Oesterle, R.. and Schwartz, S., "College Courses in the High Schwl: A Four-Year Followup of the Syracuse University Project Advance Class of 1977," College and University. Fall 1982. Wilbur, F., and Schwartz. S., "Predicting College Achievement Using Performance in College Courses Taken in High School. SAT Scores, and High School Rank." Project Advance Research Report. May 1982.
Course on Advanced Study in Chemistry Offered for High School Chemistry Teachers of Advanced Placement Chemistry
378
.
national average " on the AP Examination in chemistrv. This is especially noteworthy since a) the Syracuse chemistry course is not designed to mirror curriculum tested by the AP program, and h) Project Advance chemistry students are not prepared specifically to take the AP chemistry examination. 2) Project Advance students who did well in the Syracuse chemistry course, i.e.,achieved a grade of B or above, also tended to do well on the AP chemistry examination. Students with a grade of C did not do as well.
