An explanative basis for the differential performance of students with low math aptitude in general chemistry

Abstract

Students who score within the bottom quartile on cognitive measures of math aptitude have been identified as at-risk for low performance in chemistry courses, with less attention as to why such differential performance persists. At-risk students struggle most differentially on assessment items related to the mole concept and stoichiometry. An exploration as to the nature of the differential performance observed became of great interest as the assessment of these topics rarely progresses beyond multiplication or division, and at-risk students who achieved proficiency with the mole concept and stoichiometry had no noticeable gaps in academic chemistry performance when compared to students scoring in the top three quartiles of math aptitude. Thus, students in first-semester general chemistry were surveyed to describe their solution processes toward assessment items involving the mole concept and stoichiometry. Three hundred and forty-eight students responded to all survey prompts with 101 identified as at-risk. Findings suggest that while all students were observed to struggle in the conceptualization of the algorithms by which they execute solution processes, not-at-risk chemistry students were more likely to achieve correct answers via chemically implausible solution pathways. Rather than suggest the removal of assessment practices involving algorithmic, multiple-choice assessment on these topics, the implications include practical suggestions and opportunities for further research toward improving the equitability of measures used to assess proficiency with stoichiometry.

Exploring Engagement as a Predictor of Success in the Transition to Online Learning in First Year Chemistry

“…First semester chemistry units are required for a large variety of degree programs with different entry requirements and student motivations. Much has been written about preparation for first year chemistry in terms of both students’ mathematics background and their prior experiences with chemistry. − Diagnostic instruments have become the de facto standard for measuring prior knowledge in chemistry, and a large variety of such instruments have been described for various purposes. − Underlying much of this research is the understanding that student backgrounds impact success at the transition to university. − …”

You Are What You Assess: The Case for Emphasizing Chemistry on Chemistry Assessments

“…One could succeed perfectly well in either of these courses without ever connecting core chemistry ideas to causes for phenomena on high stakes assessments (which make up >45% of students’ grades). By contrast, students with inequitable access to precollege mathematics preparations would (and have) performed inequitably on such assessment tasks. − …”

Impact of Representations in Assessments on Student Performance and Equity

“…The response processes potentially reflect a lack of conceptualization as to the meaning of units, numerical values, and the relation to the chemical substances represented therein. These works , acknowledge a flaw in the measures used to assess chemistry knowledge and reflect the critiques of other researchers on the summative, multiple-choice instruments reliant on symbolic representations that are commonly used in chemistry assessments. ,, …”

“…In undergraduate general chemistry courses, a strong relationship has been observed between students’ precollege math test scores (e.g., SAT and ACT) and outcomes in general chemistry courses. ,− Accounting for 20–40% of the variance observed among chemistry students, ,,,− performance in chemistry courses is related to precollege math test scores, with students scoring in the bottom quartile of math tests scores at the greatest risk for withdrawing or achieving D’s and F’s when compared to their peers with higher math test scores. ,,,,,, …”

“…Decades of research predicting which students are at-risk for unfavorable academic outcomes in chemistry have yielded limited understandings as to how at-risk chemistry students struggle with the content of the course. Ralph and Lewis identified an assessment of the mole concept and stoichiometry as most differentially challenging to at-risk chemistry students and analyzed students’ response processes to these assessments to identify why these differentials may persist . The results suggest the differential between students not-at-risk and at-risk were most commonly the result of not-at-risk students’ executing chemically implausible algorithms to arrive at accurate numerical values (see Figure for examples of these solution processes).…”