Impact of basic arithmetic skills on success in first-semester general chemistry

Abstract

First-semester general chemistry is a known “gatekeeper” course due to its high failure rate. These higher education courses are taken by students who for the most part are regularly admitted freshmen, yet many struggle to succeed. In this investigation researchers from six higher-education institutions of varied sizes with student bodies of different ethnic composition teamed up to investigate the Math-Up Skills Test (MUST) as a potential tool to identify at-risk students in first-semester general chemistry (Chem I). A large population (N = 1073) was given the MUST at the beginning of the semester. The MUST had good internal consistency with the sample (Cronbach's alpha = 0.856). The MUST offers a quick 15 minute assessment of basic mathematics ability without a calculator. Instructors may find it easier than other documented predictors, which may take more time or involve obtaining student records (e.g., Math SAT). Results from the MUST support prior findings that mathematics skills correlate with course grades in chemistry. Poor arithmetic automaticity may be an underlying factor in lower performance by many students. With statistical modeling, the MUST, along with other demographic variables, was able to identify students who would go on to make a 69.5% or better in Chem I with a high percent of accuracy. The MUST, in tandem with other demographic variables, should be considered a potential tool for early identification of students at-risk for failing the class.

Is the STEM Gender Gap Closing?

“…(2017) identified calculus as a "choke point" barrier to STEM success. Mathematics level completed was a powerful determinant for success in an introductory chemistry class in other research studies as well (Mason & Mittag, 2001;Petros et al, 2017;Williamson et al, 2020), where the higher the mathematics level completed, the higher the student's course average. Sax (2017) reported the top explanatory gender-gap variable for computer science students was mathematics skills where women rated themselves lower than men but this gap was weakening over the period of the study .…”

“…While some students self-identified as non-binary for gender, this group was too small to report on while maintaining confidentiality. Previous studies by the Networking for Science Advancement (NSA) team have reported that students' automaticity ability (what can be done without the aid of a calculating device), as measured by an easily administered diagnostic test named the MUST (Math-Up Skills Test), correlates well with students' success in general chemistry courses (Albaladejo et al, 2018;Mamiya et al, in press;Petros et al, 2017;Powell et al, 2020;Villalta-Cerdas et al, in press;Weber et al, 2020;Williamson et al, 2020).…”

Relationship between Academic Preparation in General Chemistry and Potential Careers

“…Regardless of how confident in career choice they report, their preparation for their courses (i.e., their prior knowledge) is of upmost importance to having a more successful outcome. When they enter with low automaticity ability (what they can do without a calculator), they lack the mental-math skills that provide them with the ability to answer and complete problems they are likely to encounter in their general chemistry studies without struggling with the basic arithmetic skills as identified by the MUST, an excellent known predictor of course outcomes [6,9].…”

“…The A copy of the MUST and answers are available from a previous publication [6]. The MUST has a very large Cohen's d effect size of 1.43 and 1.20 for Chem I and II, respectively.…”

“…The MUST has consistently reported good reliability as it does in this study of 0.874 (the less stringent Cronbach's alpha = 0.875). The practical use of the MUST is well-established by the NSA Team [6][7][8][9], and its use documents that students' enteringautomaticity skills (what they can do mathematically without a calculating device) is a valid predictor of how successful they will be in Chem I and Chem II.…”