Success in College Physics and Chemistry for High Ability Students Without Corresponding High School Courses

676

Success in College Physics andChemistry for High Ability StudentsWithout Corresponding High SchoolCoursesRobert E. YagerScience Education CenterThe University of IowaIowa City, Iowa 52242

Most argue the importance of high school science courses as preparation forcollege. Many college faculty members will agree that high school experiencesin science are important. However, they often report that general attributesand skills are more important than content knowledge in the particular sciencediscipline (Razali, 1986; Susilo, 1987). Such concerns raise questions as to thespecific function of high school science courses for successful collegeexperiences in particular discipline courses.As costs for schooling rise, enrollment in advanced courses declines,

problems relating to school size in rural areas increase, and new calls forschool improvement emerge, new looks at the specific advantages of rigoroushigh school offerings as preparation for college science courses areappropriate. Studies conducted at the University of Iowa provide new insightsconcerning the value of preliminary high school experiences.

The Experiment

For nearly 30 years, special science programs for highly motivated andgifted students have been held at the University of Iowa. Some of theseprograms provided an opportunity for students to study college level coursesin chemistry and physics before completing similar courses in high school. Insome cases, such advanced courses were not available in the schools; in othercases, the limited number of sections available conflicted with other courses/experiences that the students elected to complete. Enrolling early in collegescience (between the junior and senior year) provided a way to completecredits in chemistry and/or physics and to begin college study early. Theprogram proved popular and the students were successful with their studies.

Eligible students were those who sought out the special summer programand applied for it. They all had a minimal 3.0 grade average on a 4.0 scale.All had grades of A in all science courses they had completed; had scoredabove the 80th percentile on available standardized examinations; and had the

School Science and MathematicsVolume 89 (8) December 1989

Success in Physics and Chemistry 677

strong support of parents, teachers, and counselors. The students selected forthe programs (both those who had completed courses in physics and/orchemistry and those who had not) were judged to be identical in terms ofgeneral ability in all other measures available. For example, there were nostatistically significant differences among any of the groups with respect to themathematics score on the American College Test.

Brochures describing the special summer offerings of standard chemistryand physics courses for the 8-week summer session were distributed widely inconnection with National Science Foundation supported Summer ScienceTraining Programs. The brochures indicated that the courses would beavailable for eligible students, some of whom would have completed andothers who would not have completed similar high school courses. Forstudents without previous experiences with courses in chemistry and/or

physics, special tutors were promised as assistance for successful collegiatestudy.Two specific questions indicate the basis for the study. These are:1. What initial differences exist between groups of students who have

completed high school physics and those who have not with respect to physicsknowledge and attitudes toward the study of physics?

2. What differences exist between the same groups at the end of twomonths of collegiate study in physics in terms of physics knowledge, attitudetoward study of physics, and use of tutors?

During a 2-year period, 60 students were enrolled in a college physics courseand 53 in a college chemistry course. About half of each group each year hadcompleted a course in the particular science (chemistry or physics); half hadnot.The students lived in university dormitories located near the two science

departments where instruction was provided for the 8-week session. Specialcounselors were employed to live in the dormitory with the students, tomonitor their study, and to provide special assistance and support. All of thecounselors were experienced high school teachers. A wide array of recreationalactivities, excursions, tours, and social events were planned as a means ofbridging the gap between high school and college and a home-schoolenvironment compared to a college-dormitory situation.The same instructors were involved for the 2-year period with the chemistry

and the physics groups. Each was a regular instructor for chemistry or collegephysics when regular college students were enrolled during the academic year.Each instructor used the same textbook, laboratory guide, examinations, andteaching procedures as employed during the regular session. The majordifference, of course, was the daily schedule which characterizes the summersession. Each day classes met for a lecture followed by a 3-hour laboratorysession, used also for discussions and quizzes.Each summer for both physics and chemistry the course, the instructor and

the mode of instruction were typical of the regular university courses with the


678 Success in Physics and Chemistry

only difference being the availability of the tutors as needed. Such availabilityof tutors is not common with the typical college courses in either generalchemistry or college physics. During the academic year, each of the coursesenrolls several hundred students each semester. Both courses are viewed asdifficult ones which many students drop before completion and in whichothers do poorly in terms of grades. Approximately one-third of the studentswho initially enrolled in the courses drop. Of the remaining students, gradesare equally distributed from A to D.

Procedures

All physics students completed a physics pretest (one version of the finalexam used for general physics) and an attitude instrument before instructionbegan. All chemistry students completed a similar course exam used as apretest and the same attitude instrument as used with the physics sectionbefore instruction began each year. Records were kept regarding study timeand time spent with a tutor. At the end of the 8-week period, all studentscompleted the regular final examinations for each of the courses and the sameattitude measure used initially. In addition, the instructional teams for the twocourses assigned grades each year for students in respective class groups.The following information was available from each student as instruction in

general college physics and chemistry courses began:1. information on high school preparation, grades, and class rank;2. letters of support from teachers, parents, and school officials;3. pretest score on a form of the final departmental physics examination for

physics students and a similar chemistry examination for the chemistrystudents; and

4. a score assessing attitude toward study of physics or chemistry.As the instruction continued during the 2-month period, anecdotal

information was recorded by the staff associated with both groups each year.Weekly tests were administered as well as one midterm examination.At the end of the instructional period, the following information was

collected for each student:1. score on final course examination;2. course grade;3. posttest attitude score; and4. number of hours spent with a tutor.These data provided the information for analysis. Results for the following

specific groups were compared:Group 1 Students who had completed high school physics and participated

in experiment during year 7;Group 2 Students who had not enrolled in high school physics and

participated in experiment during year 7;Group 3 Students who had completed high school physics and participated

in experiment during year 2\



Group 4 Students who had not enrolled in high school physics andparticipated in experiment during year 2\Group 5 Students who had completed high school chemistry and

participated in experiment during year 1\Group 6 Students who had not enrolled in high school chemistry and

participated in experiment during year 7;Group 7 Students who had completed high school chemistry and

participated in experiment during year 2;Group 8 Students who had not enrolled in high school chemistry and

participated in experiment during year 2.This study examines the following questions:1. Do high ability high school students who have not experienced high

school physics or chemistry but who have high motivation, ability, and specialtutoring available perform as well in a college course in the particular scienceas high ability high school students who have experienced the high schoolphysics or chemistry course?

2. Do the attitudes these groups of students hold towards science differ atthe end of the particular college course?To answer these general questions, the following hypotheses were tested:1. No statistically significant differences exist between the means on the

physics pretest or the chemistry pretest for students enrolled in a particularcourse.

2. No statistically significant differences exist between mean scores for thefour physics and the four chemistry groups on the final course examinations(posttest).

3. No statistically significant differences exist between means of the coursegrades for the four physics groups or the four chemistry groups.

4. No statistically significant differences exist among the groups withrespect to the mean number of hours tutored.

5. No statistically significant differences exist among the means for thepretests measuring attitude towards chemistry or physics.

6. No statistically significant differences exist among the means on theposttest designed to measure attitude towards chemistry or physics.

Results

Tables 1 through 4 present a summary of the results. Table 1 providesinformation concerning the pre- and posttest scores on the physics andchemistry examinations. Table 2 provides similar pre and post informationconcerning the attitude survey. Table 3 provides comparisons with respect tothe final course grades for all groups. And Table 4 provides informationconcerning a comparison among groups with respect to their use of tutors tohelp with their study and learning.



Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations on Pre- and Posttest Scores on Physics andChemistry Examinations

Pretest Posttest

SourceMeanS.D.MeanS.D.

Group 1 34.06 4.60 40.31 3.20

Group 2 13.43 4.15 39.57 2.62

Group 3 34.47 4.36 41.27 2.55

Group 4 15.13 5.05 40.00 2.59

Group 5 27.30 3.05 82.0 8.00

Group 6 15.70 4.55 80.57 7.99

Group 7 25.80 4.00 79.92 8.21

Group 8 15.30 3.60 80.91 8.11

Multiple Range Test reveals that the Group 1 mean is significantly different (at 0.05level) from the mean for Groups 2 and 4 on pretests; similarly, the Group 2 mean issignificantly different (at 0.05 level) from the mean for Groups 1 and 3. Group 5mean is significantly different from the mean for Groups 6 and 8 on pretests;similarly, the Group 6 mean is significantly different from the mean for groups 5and 7.

Multiple Range Test reveals no significant difference among any mean pair on theposttest.

Group 1 = year one, 16 students had completed high school physics

Group 2 == year one, 14 students had not completed high school physics

Group 3 = year two, 15 students had completed high school physics

Group 4 = year two, 15 students had not completed high school physics

Group 5 = year one, 14 students had completed high school chemistry

Group 6 = year one, 14 students had not completed high school chemistry

Group 7 = year two, 13 students had completed high school chemistry

Group 8 = year two, 12 students had not completed high school chemistry



Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations on Pre- and Posttest Scores on AttitudeSurvey

Pretest Posttest

Source Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Group 1 8.69 0.95 8.00 0.73

Group 2 9.00 0.68 8.36 0.50

Group 3 8.67 0.90 8.07 0.70

Group 4 8.73 0.80 8.20 0.68

Group 5 8.57 1.22 7.79 1.12

Group 6 8.71 0.99 7.36 1.15

Group 7 8.77 1.01 7.38 1.32

Group 8 8.83 1.03 7.25 1.21

Multiple range tests reveal no two groups are significantly different at the 0.05 level oneither the pretests or the posttests.


Group 2 = year one, 14 students had not completed high school physics




Group 6 == year one, 14 students had not completed high school chemistry



One-way ANOVA was used to test each of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 2, 3,5, and 6 could not be rejected even at the .10 level of significance (F3,56 =

.99).Hypothesis 1 was rejected at the 0.05 level (F3.56 = 95.99). Multiple range

tests determined which means differed statistically from each other. The resultof this procedure indicates that the mean of Group 1 differs significantly fromthat of Groups 2 and 4 and that the mean of Group 2 differs significantlyfrom that of Groups 1 and 3. The same relationships exist for Groups 5, 6, 7,and 8 with respect to the chemistry groups. These results indicate that therewas a significant difference between the mean scores of the students who had



experienced high school physics or chemistry and the mean scores of thosewho had not on the physics and chemistry pretests.

Hypothesis 4 was also rejected at the .05 level (F3,56 = 162.7). Again,multiple range tests determined which means differed statistically from eachother. The results of these tests, reported in Table 4, indicate that the meannumber of hours tutored for Group 1 was significantly different than that ofGroups 2 and 4 and that the mean number of hours tutored for Group 2differed significantly from that of Groups 1 and 3. Exactly the same patterns

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations on Final Course Grade

Source Mean S.D.

Group 1 1.56 0.63

Group 2 1.43 0.51

Group 3 1.47 0.52

Group 4 1.53 0.52

Group 5 3.21 0.58

Group 6 3.07 0.62

Group 7 3.08 0.64

Group 8 3.08 0.66

Multiple Range Tests reveal no significant differences among any two groups at 0.05level.

Number Assigned Grades were 1 = A2 = B3 = C


Group 2 = year one, 14 students had not completed high school physics

Group 3 == year two, 15 students had completed high school physics

Group 4 == year two, 15 students had not completed high school physics







Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviation for Pre- and Posttest Scores on Hours Spentwith Tutors

Mean NumberSource of Hours S.D.

Group 1 18.50 3.83

Group 2 58.14 10.11

Group 3 15.13 4.37

Group 4 60.80 8.88

Group 5 16.90 5.67

Group 6 60.80 1.80

Group 7 17.20 5.18

Group 8 64.40 10.71

Multiple Range Test revealed that the means for Groups 1 and 3 were significantlydifferent from the means for both Groups 2 and 4 at the 0.05 level; however, therewas no difference between Groups 1 and 3 and Groups 2 and 4.


Group 2 == year one, 14 students had not completed high school physics







are seen when examining the situation for the chemistry groups (5,’ 6, 7, and8). These results indicate that there was a significant difference between themean number of hours tutored of the students who had experienced highschool physics and chemistry and those who had not.

In viewing the results in Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that there are nodifferences among the groups with respect to initial posttest score or attitudetoward the study of physics and chemistry, posttest scores on attitude, andfinal course grades among the four physics groups and the four chemistrygroups. Whether a student had completed a course in high school physics or



chemistry had no effect on his/her attitude toward the two sciences�eitherprior to the college course or after completing it. And, final grades in thecollege course were not affected by having completed a high school course inthe discipline while in high school.

Interpretation

The results demonstrate that high ability secondary students can succeed incollege physics and chemistry courses as well as students with similar abilityand motivation who have completed a year long course in the particular highschool course. Of course, it is important to observe that the situation was nota normal college one. Counselors were available in the dormitories forassistance and more direction than that given to typical college students. And,tutors were readily available for extra help for those desiring it. Certainly, thestudents who had not had the benefit of a year long course in physics orchemistry in high school utilized these tutors and spent more time in studyingthan those who had just completed a high school course during the precedingacademic year even though both groups had equal access. The results certainlycan be explained on the basis of motivation and study times for those withouthigh school experience with chemistry and/or physics. Nevertheless, anydeficiencies could be overcome as evidenced by these experiments.Although the students who completed high school physics or chemistry

performed better on the particular discipline pretest, this advantage hadcompletely vanished after two months of college study. There were nodifferences on the final examinations or in the course grades assigned foreither discipline. For the groups studied and in the environment provided, anyadvantage held by students with experience with high school physics orchemistry vanished eight weeks later in college study in the particular sciencearea. Of course, this statement is limited by the instruments used.A remarkable finding exists with the attitude survey. There were no

differences in the mean scores for any groups whether they had studiedphysics or chemistry or not prior to the college course. This observation of nodifference was observed initially�before college study�as well as at the endafter completing the college course. Since the students who had not completeda particular high school course spent much more time in study and weredescribed by counselors as having more anxiety, the failure for differences inattitude to appear is remarkable. But again, this could be a reflection of theinstrument.The results indicate why Razali (1986) in a study of college chemistry

faculty members identified few concepts of chemistry as important prerequi-sites to the study of college chemistry. Susilo (1987) found very similar resultswhen studying biology and what concepts college instructors found importantfor high school mastery. In both of these studies, it was reported that specificinquiry skills and a host of personal attributes were viewed as far moreimportant than the mastery of specific information. The results of this series



of studies offer some explanation. College students (while still of high schoolage) can succeed equally well with or without specific experience in a highschool course in a particular science discipline provided they are given specialassistance and encouragement to do so. Motivation and the ability to studythe information presented and to perform in the laboratory and inexamination settings are not related specifically to specific study of similarcontent in a high school setting.

Perhaps much more time is needed to determine how students developmotivation, personal skills, and the ability to succeed in a specific sciencecourse at the college level. These necessary traits do not necessarily developbecause of experience with a high school chemistry or physics course. Thisclearly contradicts one of the major justifications of the typical high schoolchemistry or physics course, namely that it prepares students for college study.The National Science Foundation status studies and the follow-up ProjectSynthesis (Helgeson, 1977; Weiss, 1978; Stake & Easley, 1978; Harms &Yager, 1981) indicate dramatically how pervasive this view of the preparatoryvalue of the high school specialty subjects is across the U.S. And yet resultson the National Assessment of Education Programs (NAEP, 1978; Hueftle,Rakow, & Welch, 1982; Yager & Penick, 1986) indicate that the typicalscience course produces students who are less interested, less curious, less ableto think logically; these are not the traits that most college faculty desire; norare they traits for encouraging collegiate study of science. Too many studycollege science because it is necessary preparation for the health fields,engineering, or related careers. Relatively few study college science because ofinherent interests. And those who do seem to have little real understanding ofthe real world; four out of five see little relationship to what they seem toknow and the skills they seem to possess (mathematical computation). Thereal understandings possessed by undergraduate physics majors are causes foralarm (Klopfer & Champagne, 1984).

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:1. Students who complete high school physics or chemistry score higher on

examinations given as pretests prior to studying college physics or chemistry.2. Posttest scores and final course grades are no different for students who

have completed high school physics or chemistry and those who have not atthe end of a two month college experience with the particular sciencediscipline. (However, special assistance was provided for those students whodesired it.)

3. The pretest and posttest attitude measures are not different for studentsenrolled in college physics and chemistry for those with and those withoutprior experience in high school.

4. Students who do not complete physics or chemistry in high school spendmuch more time in studying and utilize tutors to a far greater extent than do



students enrolled in the same class who have completed the particular highschool course.

Perhaps college courses should be altered for students who have completedbasically the same course in high school. Perhaps the repetition causes somesuccessful students to be less attentive and prone to develop poor study habits.Or, perhaps it is time for college faculty members to identify the skills andmotivation needed for success in their college programs. If this is done,college faculty should also help define the qualities that they expect studentsto develop in existing college preparatory courses in physics and chemistry.The beginning college courses could be improved while freeing time in thehigh school for helping students develop specific learning and motivation skillsthat would be generally more useful. Certainly all students should benefitfrom the study of more science that is appropriate to their needs at allacademic levels. Such appropriate science may not be the typical high schoolcollege preparatory course and/or the typical introductory science course.Often there is little difference in the content characterizing such courses inhigh school and college. Most high school teachers model their advancedscience courses after typical introductory courses at the college level. Seldom isthere any difference in the college course because of a particular high schoolpreparation in a particular science. The failure for any articulation is a majorproblem. The current focus in the high school for advanced offerings has noreal justification. And, the rationale for the beginning college course seemsmore a matter of tradition than a matter of reason. The results of this studysuggest the importance of more study, debate, and dialogue among educatorsinterested in the transition from high school to college for students who aremotivated in science.

References

Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (Eds.). (1981). What research says to thescience teacher. Volume 3. Washington, DC: National Science TeachersAssociation.

Helgeson, S. L., Blosser, P. E., & Howe, R. W. (1977). The status ofpro-college science, mathematics, and social science education: 1955-75.Columbus: The Center for Science and Mathematics Education, The OhioState University.

Hueftle, S. J., Rakow, S. J., & Welch, W. W. (1983). Images of science: Asummary of results from the 1981-82 national assessment in science.Minneapolis: Research and Evaluation Center, University of Minnesota.

Knopfler, L. E., & Champagne, A. B. (1984). The cognitive psychologyperspective. In Research within reach: Science education, (pp. 171-189).Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Institute ofEducation.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). The third assessment ofscience, 1976-77, 08-S-08. Denver, CO: Author.



Razali, S. N. (1986). Comparison of perceptions of the importance of highschool chemistry among various instructors and students in the UnitedStates and Malaysia, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University ofIowa, Iowa City.

Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education, volumes Iand II. Urbana-Champaign: Center for Instructional Research andCurriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.

Susilo, HerawatL (1987). Perceived needs for students planning to studycollege biology in the United States and Indonesia. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science,mathematics, and social studies education: Center for educational researchand evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups towardscience classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science Education, 70(4),355-363.


Documents

Success in College Physics and Chemistry for High Ability Students Without Corresponding High School Courses