In the Classroom edited by
First-Year Chemistry
Renée S. Cole University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093
The Effect of LearnStar on Student Performance in Introductory Chemistry
Kent A. Chambers* Department of Chemistry and Physics, Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, TX 79601; *
[email protected] Bob Blake Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
indicated the quantity of class material being covered in the first semester of General Chemistry increased by as much as two or three chapters. A study performed at this university on data from 1996–2001 shows that students who pass Introductory Chemistry with a grade of C or better, performed statistically at the same level in General Chemistry as those students who were judged not to need remediation (3). This study indicates the educational goals of the Introductory Chemistry program were being fulfilled. Unfortunately, there were some unanticipated effects of requiring 75% of the beginning chemistry students to take Introductory Chemistry. While the performance in General Chemistry was significantly higher, the actual number of beginning students who were successfully completing General Chemistry with a grade of C or better began to drop. The total attrition rate for the Introductory–General Chemistry sequence rose from an average of 63% in the three years prior to the chemistry placement exam to an average of 73% (z test, p < 0.001) in the three years after the placement exam was instituted as shown in Figure 2 (3). A major contributor to this increased attrition was the large number of students who had been successful in Introductory Chemistry and received a grade of C or better and then elected not to take General Chemistry. For the purposes of this study, this action is defined as voluntary attrition. Prior to offering the placement exam, 32% of the students who received a grade of C or better in Introductory Chemistry elected not to take General Chemistry. After the
80
implementation of chemistry placement exam
70
DFW Rate (%)
There has been concern over the past several years that a large percentage of graduating high school seniors are not prepared to enroll in a college-level science course (1, 2). One of the most common methods to improve student success in their college-level science courses is to use remedial or introductory classes to prepare these students for college-level courses in science. Unfortunately, some research has indicated that such introductory courses in chemistry have actually increased the overall levels of student attrition (3). Since the primary goal of such introductory courses is to increase student performance and reduce attrition, we examined the effect of using LearnStar, a supplemental learning technique, on student performance in an introductory chemistry course at Texas Tech University. To increase the number of students who were successfully completing General Chemistry, the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry added Chemistry 1301, Introductory Chemistry, to its curriculum.1 The intended purpose of Introductory Chemistry was to help underprepared students develop the needed skills to take General Chemistry. Currently, Introductory Chemistry is not part of any degree plan, and since a lab is not offered with it, the course does not fulfill any general education requirements. Introductory Chemistry is offered in a standard lecture format and typical class sizes range from about 100–350 students per class section. The textbook used in various editions since 1996 is Basic Chemistry by Stephen Zumdahl (4). The majority of class sections taught in a given semester over the past nine years had common exams and cumulative finals. The way in which Introductory Chemistry has been integrated into the overall chemistry curriculum has evolved over the years. Placement in the course, initially made on a voluntary basis, occurs by a departmental-administered placement exam. Subsequent to the implementation of the placement exam (PE) in the fall of 1999, about 75% of incoming beginning chemistry students are placed into Introductory Chemistry as compared to about 20% prior to the PE (3). The placement exam is mandatory for all students wishing to take General Chemistry, and the cutoff score has remained constant since its inception. General Chemistry is offered only to students who have passed the placement exam or Introductory Chemistry. The initial effects of Introductory Chemistry were positive. The overall academic performance in General Chemistry increased dramatically, with average grades increasing significantly and the DFW rates (the percentage of student receiving a D, F, or withdrawing from the course) falling from an average of 58% to 46% (z test, p < 0.001) as shown in Figure 1 (3). In addition to increased classroom performance, some professors
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
F 1996
S
F 1997
S
F 1998
S
F 1999
S
F 2000
S
F 2001
Semester Figure 1. General Chemistry DFW rates before and after implemen tation of the mandatory placement exam.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 10 October 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
1395
In the Classroom
placement exam was implemented this number rose to 44% (z test, p 0.05 No Sig Diff
—
Group
N
Table 6. Student Performance in Introductory Chemistry LearnStar versus Pre- and Posttest Control Groups Group
Exam1 Exam2 Exam3 (%) (%) (%)
Final (%)
Grade (%)
Pretest Control Fall 2000
68.1
60.8
49.2
57.1
61.5
LearnStar Fall 2003
81.4
69.9
71.9
69.9
73.6
Posttest Control Spring 2005
63.0
56.0
59.6
49.5
59.0
Note: All values for the LearnStar are significantly higher than pretest control group for this variable p < 0.001 and significantly higher than posttest control group for this variable p < 0.001.
Literature Cited 1. Valverde, G.; Schmidt, W. Issues Sci. Technol. 1997–1998, 60, 6–13. 2. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Report on Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions, Fall 1995; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1996. 3. Gellene, G.; Bentley, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 125–130. 4. Zumdahl, S. Basic Chemistry, 5th ed.; Houghton Mifflin: New York, 2004. 5. Gosser, D.; Roth, V. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 185–187. 6. Tien, L.; Roth, V.; Kampmeier, J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 606–632. 7. Lyle, K.; Robinson, W. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 132–134. 8. Durden, G.; Ellis, L. Am. Econ. Rev. Papers and Proceeding 1995, 85, 343–346. 9. House, J. Int. J. Instructional Media 1994, 21, 1–11. 10. Marburger, D. J. Econ. Educ. 2001, 32, 99–109. 11. Romer, D. J. Econ. Perspect. 1993, 7, 167–174.
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Oct/abs1395.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited JCE articles
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 10 October 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
1399
