TREATMENT of STUDENTS EARNING LOW GRADES* F. E. BROWN Iowa State
AND
R. R. COONS
College, Ames, Iowa
T
HE CAUSES for the quality of work done by college students in freshman chemistry may be unknown, but every teacher of the subject knows that the close of each term will bring the problem of dealing with students whose work has been unsatisfactory. The welfare of the student should finally determine the treatment to be accorded. The student's welfare is an ill-defined conception but it is concerned with, a t least: his interest in the subject, his mastery of the subject, a realization that hard, honest work is required and is effective, and the conservation of his time, effort, and money. For many years the passing grade a t Iowa State College was 75%. Grades below passiug were W, withheld, C, condition, and N. P., failure. A failure required the repetition of the entire work of the course. A condition or a withheld grade required that a part, but not all, of the work be repeated. A withheld grade differed from a condition only in the fact that the former was employed when the causes for failing to do satisfactory work were beyond the control of the student. Nearly all grades of 75% and many grades of 76% are given to students whose work is really unsatisfactory. The student always receives the benefit of any doubt about the justice of rating him below passing, and many receive grades of 75y0 or 76% in the hope 'Abstract of a paper delivered at the Twelfth Midwest Regional Meeting of the A. C. S., Kansas City, Mo., May 4, 1934.
that a low passing grade will be sufficient warning to secure better work in subsequent courses. For this reason, students receiving grades of 75% and 76% are included in this study. The methods prescribed for the completion of the work of a course serve as the basis for division into groups. The groups are: I, those who received 75% or 76%; 11, those who received a condition removable by passiug an examination; 111,those who received conditions removable by repeating lectures and recitations without laboratory; and IV, those who received failures removable only by repeating the entire course. A study of the students whose grades were withheld shows that they belong, in large part a t least, to a different class of students and a study of that group is not included in this report. The group to which a student is assigned is determined by the group into which he fell on his first appearance in any of these groups. During a period of about ten years, these groups included 5765 students distributed as follows: I, 2450; 11, 753; 111, 1381; IV, 1181. The following tables show the enrolments and grades received in subsequent courses in chemistry by members of each of these four groups. The numbers in the different groups are quite diierent. Therefore, in order to make comparisons easy the data in the tables have been computed on the basis of 1000 students in each group, or 1000 enrolments in a specified group of courses in chemistry.
Table I shows the number of students per thousand students in each group who continued work in subsequent courses. The school year consists of three quarters. Gvaup I Did not rcinrol 121 301 Dromed after second cluarter ~ o o k ~ c h e m i s only t r ~ one year 255 Registered in courses after the first year 323
Group 11 271 301 226 202
Goup 111 325 316 154 205
Group IV 491 279 140 90
This table shows that the proportion of students dropping from chemistry is roughly proportional to the severity of the requirements necessary for completing the work of the courses in which they are delinquent. Of course, if the judgment of the teachers is good, the severity of the requirements for removal of the conditions is inversely proportional to the prohability that good work will he done by the student. This probability involves character, persistence, and previous training as well as ability. It is reasonably predictable that those with less expectancy of success and greater immediate tasks would give up the struggle in relatively larger numbers. Tahle 2 shows the total number of grades made per thousand students in each group. The grades received in each group are separated on the basis of quality of work done.
Failures Conditions '15% or 76% 77-90% 91-100% Total number of passing grades
147 281 358 746 17 1121
279 214 428 890 7 1325
181 253 391 867 21 1279
157 184 247 431 11 889
The larger number of failures in Group I1 is due in part, a t least, to the failures which occur when the examination is written a t the opening of the next term. The larger numbers of passing grades in Groups IS and III, when compared to Group I, are due, in part a t least, to the passing grades received in the work of the term for which those receiving 75% or 76% have already received a passing grade. Table 3 shows the distribution of grades per thousand grades in each group. This shows the quality of work done regardless of the number of subsequent enrolments. TABLE 3 SVBSBQTJEN~ GRADES IN CAGIIISTRY PER
Failures Conditions 75% or 76% 77-90% 91-100% Paoring grader per $000 graden
Croup I 95 181 232 481 11 724
THOUSAND GRADBB
Group I1 153 118 235 489
4 728
Group 111 106 147 189 506 12 707
Gmup 1v 151 I76 238 415 20 673
Tables IV and V show the distribution of grades received in chemistry courses taken after the completion of the first year's work in chemistry. Tahle 4 is cal-
culated on the basis of 1000 students of each group. Table 5 is based on 1000 enrolments in chemistry courses beyond the freshman year's work, in each group.
Failures Conditions 75% or 76% 77-90% 91-100% Passing grader per 1000 students
Failures Conditions 75% or 76% 77-90% 91-100% Passing grader per 1000 enrolments
Grovp I 42 98 82 263 6 351
Gmu9 II 25 50 52 161 0 213
Group III 38 75 67 150 2 219
Croup IV 11 27 23 68 3 94
13 714
0 739
6 670
22 712
Tables 2 and 3 show that if students receive conditions in freshman chemistry removable by examinations and remove the conditions by that method, they receive as high grades in subsequent courses in chemistry as students who were given 75% or 76%. This seems to show that students ill-prepared for a succeeding course in chemistry may materially improve their chances of success in future work by preparing for and passing an examination to remove a condition. If this is true some students now compelled to become irregular by the repetition of lectures and recitations might he permitted to take an examination without jeopardizing their future work. It is possible that, if some of the students who are now given low passing grades were compelled to spend a vacation period studying the work they slighted during the regular term, their work in subsequent terms would he improved. When large numbers of examinations are assigned without some system, large numbers of failures result. When the routine procedure was to request all or nearly all students whose work was unsatisfactory to write an examination, and notices were mailed after vacation had begun, about three-fourths of those who reported for the examinations failed and those who passed were ill-prepared. To avoid these disappointments to the students and the burden of giving and grading useless examinations, a regular procedure is followed. Before the close of each term each student is told that he should see his instructor after his final examination is graded, and that no student whose work is unsatisfactory will he permitted to remove a condition by passing an examination unless he does call on his instructor and ask for that privilege. Unless the student can show that he has some plan for systematic study he is told that he must repeat the lectures and recitations before taking the next course. The number of conditional examinations is decreased but the percentage of the examinations above passing is greatly increased. About
four-fifths of those given permission to take conditional examinations are successful. Weather is apparently a factor in student success in passing examinations. Thiy-three of the thiiy-four candidates who appeared at the close of one stormy, disagreeable Christmas vacation were successful. In some cases, especially in qualitative analysis, a large fraction of the conditions is due to a failure to complete the analyses required. Our data do not indicate that conditions given because of slow work in laboratory are associated with a tendency to do poor work in subsequent courses. About 96% of the students who receive such conditions complete the work of the iirst year, 44% enrol in courses in advance of the first year, and 82y0 of all subsequent enrolments result in passing grades. Students who have taken any course in chemistry and are yet unqualified to attempt the work of some
subsequent course should be required to make up their deficiencies before undertaking the advanced course. The method for removal of deficiencies should not unnecessarily hamper the student. Failure to complete laboratory work on time, and failure due to illness or other unavoidable cause, has little or no influence on the grades in subsequent courses. The surprising result of the survey was the comparatively good subsequent record of those who prepared for and took examinations, sometimes within a week of the close of the term during which they received a condition. This good record is achieved by making the taking of the examination a privilege to be secured only upon request by the student and by permission of the instructor. Each delinquency remains a separate problem involving a personality and a deficiency, both of which must be considered.
