Research: Science and Education
The Chemistry Merit Program: Reaching, Teaching, and Retaining Students in the Chemical Sciences Gretchen M. Adams* and James M. Lisy Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801; *
[email protected] In 1996, Susan Arena-Zumdahl, the former Chemistry Merit Program Director, published an article in this Journal titled “Mission Impossible? Improving Retention of Science Majors among Minorities and Women” (1). She briefly discussed the Chemistry Merit Program and the benefits it provides for minority students in science. This paper provides an update on the progress of the Chemistry Merit Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (UIUC) over the past decade and highlights some of its long-term and short-term successes in more detail.
The Chemistry Merit Program for Emerging Scholars was created to address a serious educational issue facing our nation: the need for a renewable pool of citizens trained to carry on the mission of our science and technology sectors that are so critical to U.S. economic growth. According to a recent report by the National Science Board, the number of U.S.-born science and engineering graduates entering the workforce will likely decrease unless there is a concerted effort to increase the number of science and engineering students from all demographic groups, especially those currently underrepresented in science and engineering careers (2). The National Science Board’s report emphasizes the importance of retaining students from underrepresented groups as a “strategy for expanding participation in science and engineering careers” (2). With the college-age population shifting toward increased growth among people of color and decreased growth among European Americans, the U.S. will suffer a drop in the scientific workforce if changes are not made to recruit and retain scientists from these underrepresented groups (2). Furthermore, increasing the number of underrepresented students pursuing science careers will provide a more diverse population in the workforce. Diversity in the scientific workforce is important because “scientists, as individuals with their own points of view on what is important, make critical decisions for society on what should be studied and supported” (3). The report concludes that the achievement of these retention goals requires “modification of the educational environment” (1). As seen nationwide and at our institution, we observed a higher attrition rate for people of color and students from rural high schools versus European American students from large suburban high schools, particularly in mathematics, science, and engineering (4, 5). In order to address this retention problem and strengthen our educational program at UIUC, the Chemistry Department officially began the Chemistry Merit Program1 in 1993. The goals of this program are to: • Recruit and retain students in chemistry. Special importance is placed on the retention and recruitment of students from underrepresented groups and students from small or rural high schools (graduating class ≤ 150 students), although recruitment is not limited to these groups of students.
•
• Improve academic performance. • Help students learn to solve complex problems by understanding the fundamental concepts of chemistry, not by simply using algorithms to get correct answers. • Build self-confidence by providing a challenging yet comfortable environment conducive to learning. • Demonstrate the value of working in groups as a productive and beneficial way of learning.
Motivation for the Chemistry Merit Program
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
• Bring participants together to build an academic and social community, to thrive in learning chemistry and to meet others with common academic interests.
Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, President of the University of Maryland states “The fact is that if we could just keep the kids, Black and Latino, who have done well, and who have As and Bs in chemistry from high school—if we could just keep them and help them get through the first year of college … we could double the number coming out of bachelor’s degree programs” (6). He says that these students get “wiped out” in the first year of college. For this reason, the Chemistry Merit Program specifically focuses on recruiting underrepresented students the summer before their first year. We target students in majors that require at least one year of general chemistry, including engineering and most physical, life, and agricultural science majors. Students are invited into the program based on their academic potential and commitment to intellectual excellence. If there is space available for additional students after Merit students have enrolled, the Merit course sections are then opened to all students. We determine whether a student has high academic potential and is committed to excellence using these criteria: 1. High school class ranking. If it is 90% or higher, we assume that the student is motivated and takes academic study seriously, although sometimes we will accept a student with a lower class ranking if the student is from a large high school and has a competitive ACT or SAT score. 2. Competitive ACT or SAT scores, applying a lower cutoff at about a 24 Math ACT (1110 SAT). For the past five years the average ACT score for all UIUC undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors was 30 (1340 SAT). We look for students with competitive scores, not necessarily the highest scores. 3. Personal interviews, where we describe exactly what our program entails and ask whether the student wants to commit to it.
Students are invited into the program by a letter; each respondent meets with the Program Director during his or her campus orientation program. Beyond these initial recruiting efforts, we also depend heavily on advisor referrals. Furthermore, we have students that hear of our program by word-of-mouth every semester and ask to participate.
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
721
Research: Science and Education
Table 1. Comparative Effects of the Merit Program on Student Retention in Chemical Sciences Merit Participants Students by Category
Treatment Students (N)
Overall Asian American European American
Non-Participants
Earned B.S. in Chem or ChemE (N)
Retention Rate (%)
274
140
51
34
17
Control Group Students (N)
Earned B.S. in Chem or ChemE (N)
Retention Rate (%)
1147
432
38
50
247
97
39
150
84
56
821
312
38
African American
57
26
46
30
7
23
Hispanic American
28
10
36
22
5
23
Male
130
70
54
710
282
40
Female
144
70
49
437
150
34
59
26
44
175
50
29
From Small High School Class
Program Description The Merit Program implements Uri Treisman’s model2 of collaborative–cooperative instruction methods developed at the University of California, Berkeley during the 1970s (7, 8). A highly trained facilitator stimulates student–student interactions by providing a challenging worksheet or activity for the students, then circulates around the classroom to give constructive feedback as the students work together in small groups (1). At UIUC, we implement this program by having Merit participants attend the same lectures and labs as other students in the course and take the same exams. In addition, they meet weekly for Merit workshops lasting two hours. Each workshop contains about 22 students. These workshops replace the regular recitation sections. While workshop questions are based on material covered in lectures, they are designed to stretch each student’s abilities to the fullest extent. The facilitator gives “few answers on the mechanics of problem solving, but rather encourages the students to think out loud, giving everyone in the group a chance to interact and react to each student’s thoughts” (1). Having different groups of students compare their answers further encourages student–student interaction. This peer teaching can expose student misconceptions and promotes a more conceptual understanding of the material. The Merit Program provides a setting in which they can see that many other students also struggle with the material and that by working hard, staying motivated, and asking questions, they too can be successful science students in college. The group activities and the worksheet problems are designed to help the students in their introductory class, and also to develop skills that will be valuable in subsequent academic classes, graduate school, or future career settings. Some of these skills include critical thinking, persistence, collaborating in groups with their peers, asking questions when confused, developing confidence in their abilities, and teaching themselves how to learn and solve problems on their own and with their peers. Since Merit Program participants are 722
Journal of Chemical Education
•
expected to play an active role during class, they are required to keep up with reading assignments, complete homework problems on time, and attend lecture. We also encourage and expect the students to interact together outside of the classroom to further develop support networks within our social– academic community. In summary, “the students help each other with difficult course problems, develop friendships based on common academic interests, and inspire each other to maintain a high level of commitment to excellence in an atmosphere of trust and respect” (1). In addition, many of our facilitators are former Merit students themselves or plan to pursue teaching careers in the future. As a result, they often mentor the current Merit students on how to be successful in college. The students in our program also receive additional advising support from the Merit Program director, extending all the way to graduation. Merit Program Growth Since the inception of the Merit Program in the Department of Chemistry, enrollment has expanded from approximately 30 students and 2 sections in the Fall of 1993, to an estimated 290 students and 16 sections in the Fall of 2005. Because of the increased level of interest in the Merit Program, particularly in recent years, more sections have been made available each year. While there were only two courses that offered a Merit Workshop section in 1993, one in General Chemistry I and one in Accelerated Chemistry I, by the Fall of 2005, seven different courses offered a Merit Workshop ranging from Introductory Chemistry to Organic Chemistry II. Long-Term Successes
Retention We have compared the retention rates of students who participated in the Merit Program with students who did not: “non-Merit” or control group students. The data include students who initially declared majors in chemistry or chemical
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Research: Science and Education
Table 2. Comparison of the Treatment and Control Group Students by Average ACT Scores Merit Participants Average ACT Scores (0–36) Students by Category
Composite (4 Sections)
Mathematics Section
Overall
27.8
28.9
Asian American
29.1
European American African American
Science Reasoning Section
Non-Participants Average ACT Scores (0–36) Composite (4 Sections)
Mathematics Section
27.2
28.5
29.6
28.1
31.5
28.4
27.7
29.9
26.7
29.2
30.3
28.7
29.0
29.7
28.7
24.5
25.2
23.8
23.7
24.0
23.0
Hispanic American
25.5
26.1
25.6
25.6
26.9
25.5
Male
28.2
29.8
28.4
28.7
30.1
28.7
Female
27.4
28.1
26.4
28.2
28.7
27.2
From Small High School Class
28.2
28.5
27.4
28.5
29.2
28.0
engineering, who enrolled as first-year students during the period of Fall 1993–2000, then graduated with degrees in chemistry or chemical engineering during the period of May 1997–2005. We combined the data for chemistry and chemical engineering students because both majors have a common curriculum for the first two years and students often switch between these two majors. Once the retention rates were determined, ACT scores and high school class rankings were also analyzed. The number of years of high school chemistry was not compared because this has already been shown not to have an effect on students’ chemistry performance (9). While looking at the results that follow, it is instructive to keep in mind that the students who participated in the Chemistry Merit Program were self-selected, meaning they chose to enroll in the Merit Program on their own. Many students who were invited chose not to participate in the program. A comparison is valid for student retention in the overall sample and for the gender subgroups. Analysis of the smaller subgroups is less reliable due to the small sample size. But, with these points made, the majority of the data are sound and dependable. Table 1 shows the retention of chemistry and chemical engineering majors. Those who participated in the Chemistry Merit Program have a higher rate of retention than nonMerit Program majors, 51% versus 38%. Although some of the subgroup sample sizes are small, note that the retention rates are higher in every category for the Merit students in comparison with their non-Merit counterparts. To demonstrate the success of the Merit Program, we need to show that the background and motivation of both Merit and non-Merit groups are similar. We first consider the average ACT scores from these groups as a measure of their initial background and preparation for college work. These data are given in Table 2. A second factor, students’ standing among their peers, is reflected in the high school class rankings. This can be considered as a measure of both motivation and effort to excel in the classroom. These results are presented in Table 3. www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Science Reasoning Section
As can be seen, the differences between the Merit and non-Merit groups are rather small. In some cases, the average ACT scores and class rankings are higher for the Merit students when categorized by race or ethnicity. When the groups are re-categorized by gender, however, the ACT scores and rankings for the Merit cohort are slightly lower. This indicates that the successful retention of the Merit students was not preordained based on their background or motivation. As a final point, there is a sizeable gap in retention rates for non-Merit African American students when compared to the retention rate for all non-Merit students. This gap is substantially reduced for Merit African American students and essentially eliminated for women, when compared to all Merit students. This is a positive sign of movement toward reducing the retention differences between students from underrepresented groups and the rest of the student body.
Table 3. Comparison of Treatment and Control Group Students by High School Class Ranking Rank in High School Class (%) Students by Category
Merit Participants
Non-Participants
Overall
90.0
92.0
Asian American
93.8
91.9
European American
92.6
92.5
African American
82.3
80.2
Hispanic American
86.7
85.3
Male
88.5
91.4
Female
91.3
93.0
From Small High School Class
87.8
91.4
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
723
Research: Science and Education Table 4. Comparison of Treatment and Control Group Students Changing Majors to Chemical Sciences Students by Category MAsian American
Merit Participants (N)
Control Group Students (N)
6
93
MEuropean American
19
215
MAfrican American
21
12
MHispanic American
7
11
MOther
0
3
53
334
MMTotal MMale
20
182
MFemale
33
152
MMTotal
53
334
Recruitment The Merit Program has also been successful in recruiting students into chemistry and chemical engineering, particularly among these underrepresented groups, as reflected in Table 4. For enrollees at UIUC between 1993 and 2000 as first-year students, 53 Merit students (28 from underrepresented groups) who had not initially declared chemistry or chemical engineering as their major graduated with degrees in one of these fields. In the non-Merit cohort, 334 students switched into and graduated with a degree in chemistry or
chemical engineering, but only 23 of those students were from underrepresented minority groups. Even though more nonMerit students have switched into these majors (which we expected since they come from a large pool of students), only 7% of these students are from underrepresented minority groups, versus 53% for the Merit cohort. Furthermore, a larger percentage of the Merit recruits are female, 62% versus 46%. Short-Term Successes To help us understand why the Merit Program has been effective in the long-term, student feedback about the program was obtained. Furthermore, grade performance was also analyzed. The data above show what the Merit Program has achieved thus far, yet they do not provide information as to why the program is recruiting and retaining students in these target groups at higher rates. Thus, since the spring of 2003, online surveys have been given to Merit students at the end of each semester to try to gain insight into the program from the student’s perspective. At least 90% of the feedback has been positive (and virtually all of the Merit students have provided feedback). The impact the Chemistry Merit Program has on our students moves beyond the quantitative value of higher recruitment and retention rates. It also appears to positively affect student comprehension of chemistry, confidence, and peer relationships. It adds to the educational and personal experiences students have at the University of Illinois. Textbox 1 provides some student comments that are the most indicative responses from each area of questioning.
Textbox 1. Example Student Responses to an Online Survey Regarding the Merit Program
On the Student’s Decision To Remain in Their Major
On the Student’s Understanding of How To Solve Complex Problems
• Despite the difficulty of the courses, I still am a chemistry major.
• The problems [on the worksheets] force you to think outside the box.
• Merit has been integral to my enjoyment of the classes.
• The worksheets focused on the understanding of the concepts, which was beneficial.
• Motivates you more to remain in major, almost like a support system.
On Building the Student’s Self-Confidence
On the Student’s Relationships with Their Fellow Merit Classmates
• Makes me believe in myself, that I can do it.
• The main benefit of Merit to me was not learning chemistry, but meeting new people with similar majors/areas of interest. • I am actually roommates with one of my classmates I met in Merit. I have made many “study pals” through Merit.
• I feel I can ask questions without feeling stupid and I know that my TA will welcome the questions. • The other students are here to learn and they are not put out with discussing or sharing answers.
On the Student’s Academic Performance
• Nothing can compare to the benefits of the Merit Program. I have had a very positive experience, and that’s why I’m continuing Merit next semester. The TAs are of superior intelligence and teaching abilities, as well as provide enough time to digest the material. Each teacher has gone above and beyond in assisting every member of the class. I literally feel that without Merit, not only would my grades be suffering, but my dedication to chemistry as well.
• It has really helped by providing a more challenging atmosphere in learning so the tests do not seem as hard.
724
Journal of Chemical Education
•
On Working in Groups • The small groups allow discussion on problems where everybody can participate. This participation is integral to learning and allows our brains to actually process the information in a way that it sticks. • I was able to explain my reasoning to the other students. Often times I found that I got an answer right and tried to explain it to someone else. I got the answer right but from wrong reasoning, which means that I might not get that type of problem right all of the time.
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Research: Science and Education
Another reason why the Merit Program is successful could be due to grade performance, particularly among students from underrepresented groups. It is important to point out that Merit students take the same exams and are graded on the same scale as all other students in the course. In a comparison of average GPAs, Merit students performed at a level matching or exceeding all enrolled students. In all courses in which a Merit workshop was offered, Merit students from underrepresented minority groups outperformed their nonMerit counterparts. The results for two, large, first-year courses are shown below in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 includes grades for General Chemistry I, which is the first semester in a twosemester sequence, taken by first-year science and engineering majors. Table 6 includes grades for Accelerated Chemistry I, which is also the first semester in a two-semester sequence,
taken by first-year chemistry, chemical engineering, and biochemistry majors. In these two courses, this grade performance margin was approximately one-half of a letter grade higher. Equally important, the percentage of grades of D, F, and Withdrawal were substantially lower for these Merit students than for their non-Merit counterparts. This success builds the confidence of Merit students and encourages them to remain in chemistry. Conclusion The purpose of this report is not to prove that the Merit Program is a superior educational approach for every student, but to show that it seems to be successful in the long-term, particularly for students from underrepresented groups. A
Table 5. Distribution of Grades for UIUC General Chemistry I Courses a Letter Gradeb
All Students (N = 4428), (%)
Non-Merit Students (N = 4045), (%)
Merit Students (N = 383), (%)
Merit UnderRepresented Studentsc (N = 161), (%)
Non-Merit UnderRepresented Studentsc (N = 508), (%)
A
676
(15.3%)
619
(15.3%)
57
(14.9%)
9
(5.6%)
22
(4.3%)
B
1393
(31.5%)
1266
(31.3%)
127
(33.2%)
47
(29.2%)
81
(15.9%)
C
1535
(34.7%)
1403
(34.7%)
132
(34.5%)
63
(39.1%)
179
(35.2%)
D
617
(13.9%)
566
(14.0%)
51
(13.3%)
33
(20.5%)
150
(29.5%)
F
146
(3.3%)
134
(3.3%)
12
(3.1%)
7
(4.3%)
53
(10.4%)
W
21
(0.5%)
18
(0.4%)
3
(0.8%)
2
(1.2%)
10
(2.0%)
Other
40
(0.9%)
39
(1.0%)
1
(0.3%)
0
(0.0%)
13
(2.6%)
Avg GPA
2.42
2.42
2.44
2.11
1.68
a (Spring 1999 to Spring 2005). bLetter grade abbreviations include a grade’s plus or minus designation; i.e., B = B, B-, and B+, etc. F = Failed or No Credit, W = Withdrawal, Other = Excused, Absent, or Credit Given (no letter grade given). cUnderrepresented students include those with African American, Hispanic American, Native American, and Alaskan Native heritage.
Table 6. Distribution of Grades for UIUC Accelerated Chemistry I Courses a Letter Gradeb
All Students (N = 1393), (%)
Non-Merit Students (N = 1267), (%)
Merit Students (N = 126), (%)
Merit UnderRepresented Studentsc (N = 28), (%)
Non-Merit UnderRepresented Studentsc (N = 46), (%)
A
328
(23.5%)
304
(24.0%)
24
(19.0%)
4
(14.3%)
3
(6.5%)
B
527
(37.8%)
474
(37.4%)
53
(42.1%)
12
(42.9%)
14
(30.4%)
C
368
(26.4%)
331
(26.1%)
37
(29.4%)
9
(32.1%)
11
(23.9%)
D
1 05
(7.5%)
96
(7.6%)
9
(7.1%)
2
(7.1%)
9
(19.6%)
F
45
(3.2%)
43
(3.4%)
2
(1.6%)
1
(3.6%)
7
(15.2%)
W
5
(0.4%)
5
(0.4%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Other
15
(1.1%)
14
(1.1%)
1
(0.8%)
0
(0.0%)
Avg GPA
2.72
2.72
2.70
2.57
2
(4.3%) 1.93
a(Fall 1999 to Fall 2004). bLetter grade abbreviations include a grade’s plus or minus designation; i.e., B = B, B-, and B+, etc. F = Failed or No Credit, W = Withdrawal, Other = Excused, Absent, or Credit Given (no letter grade given). cUnderrepresented students include those with African American, Hispanic American, Native American, and Alaskan Native heritage.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
725
Research: Science and Education
controlled study of participants would be useful in quantifying the degree of success. The program serves as an effective “modification of the educational environment” as the National Science Board recommends, at least for those students who desire it. Other universities, particularly large ones, might consider offering a program based on Uri Treisman’s model, if one is not currently offered. Recruiting and retaining students in the chemical sciences is of national importance, especially when trying to meet the need of having a sufficient number of qualified citizens for the scientific workforce. This requires developing new techniques and programs beyond conventional teaching styles. The Chemistry Merit Program is one alternative that has evidence of success, especially for students from underrepresented groups. We believe this program is vital to our university and to our nation’s science and technology sectors. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Department of Chemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign for its long-term commitment to the Chemistry Merit Program for Emerging Scholars. We also acknowledge support from the Henry & Camille Dreyfus Foundation, Inc. for a Special Grant in the Chemical Sciences to facilitate the renovation of a second classroom, dedicated to the Merit Program. Lastly, we thank Donald DeCoste for a critical review of the manuscript. Notes 1. Chemistry Merit Program details are available at http:// www.scs.uiuc.edu/chem/undergrad/chemmerit.html (accessed Jan 2007). 2. Uri Treisman was the creator of the Emerging Scholars Program. Additional information about it can be found at this Web site: http://www.collegeboard.com/repository/calcandcomm_3947.pdf (accessed Jan 2007).
726
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Literature Cited 1. Arena-Zumdahl, Susan. J. Chem Educ. 1996, 73, A266. 2. National Science Board. The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential, NSB 03-69; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2003; pp 1, 14–15, 20; http:// www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf (accessed Jan 2007). 3. Poodry, Clifton A. Diversity: Why Is It Important and How Can It Be Achieved? In Minorities in the Chemical Workforce: Diversity Models That Work. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003; p 7. 4. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Division of Management Information. http://www.dmi.uiuc.edu/ (accessed Jan 2007). 5. America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education; Kahlenberg, Richard D., Ed.; The Century Foundation Press: New York, 2004; p 22. 6. Hrabowski, F. A. III. Beating the Odds: Preparing Minorities for Research Careers in the Chemical Sciences. In Minorities in the Chemical Workforce: Diversity Models That Work; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003; p 89. 7. Asera, Rose. Calculus and Community: A History of the Emerging Scholars Program; College Entrance Examination Board: New York, 2001; pp 1, 15; http://www.collegeboard.com/repository/calcandcomm_3947.pdf (accessed Jan 2007). 8. Treisman, Uri. A Study of the Mathematics Performance of Black Students at the University of California, Berkeley. In Mathematicians and Education Reform, Proceedings of the July 5–7, 1988 National Meeting; American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, 1990. 9. DeCoste, Donald. Importance of the Number of Units of High School Chemistry with Respect to Success in College Chemistry. M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1994; p 19.
Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
