JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 26, NO. 7, PP. 599-608 (1989)

SUCCESS OF STUDENTS IN A COLLEGE PHYSICS COURSE WITH AND WITHOUT EXPERIENCING A HIGH

SCHOOL COURSE

ROBERT E. YAGER

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52240

JOSEPH S. KRAJCIK

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

Abstract

High school students with high ability were enrolled in a standard college physics course for each of two summers with the same professor, same course outline, same textbook, same laboratories, and the same examinations. Half of each group had completed a high school physics course; half had not. Dormitory counselors were available for assistance and support. In addition, tutors were available in the labomtories to provide any help necessary with interpretation of lectures and performances in the laboratory, and with mathematical computation. Pre- and posttest measures concerning course content and attitude were given. After the eight-week summer instruction, the students who had not completed high school physics performed as well on the final course examination; there were no differences with respect to course grade or attitude toward physics. The group that had not completed high school physics used the tutors provided far more frequently than did students w7ib had completed the high school course. When high- ability students are enrolled in college physics with tutors made available for needed assistance, there appears to be no advantage for students to complete the standard high school physics course.

Most high school science teachers plan their course offerings as if most of their students aspire to college study, even though only half of all high school students enroll in college (Weiss, 1978; Stake & Easley, 1978). However, nearly all of the students who complete high school chemistry and physics attend some form of post- secondary education. High school chemistry and physics courses have been labeled “college preparatory,” and in many respects mirror the topics, laboratories, and procedures of the college course. Many educational leaders have called for high school offerings with a different focus (Herron et al., 1985; Penick and Lunetta, 1984; Lunetta and Poduska, 1984). Certainly the work of all of the task forces appointed to establish criteria for the Searches for Excellence in Science Education project of the National Science Teachers Association illustrate such broader objectives for the high school

0 1989 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/89/070599-10$04.00

600 YAGER AND KRAJCIK

physical science offerings (NSTA, 1987; Penick, 1984; Penick & Krajcik, 1985; Penick & Lunetta, 1984).

However, many high school science supervisors and teachers have not followed the recommendations of such professional groups, fearing that their students will not perform as well on standardized tests or in competition in the college setting. Many justify the typical courses because students “need” the information and the rigor to succeed in college. Many work diligently to install advanced courses (i.e., second- level biology, chemistry, and physics courses) and advanced placement programs (courses for which high-school students are awarded college credit after passing ex- aminations).

Few have questioned the value of traditional high school physics courses; most assume that successfully completing a rigorous physics course will be beneficial for those aspiring to college and, especially, a major in college science. Most assume that if students seemingly excel in such rigorous high school offerings that such students are well served and have proceeded in appropriate directions with their educations. However, current research in cognitive science indicates that students learn more by developing a strong foundation in a few important concepts.

Several current problems provide cause for rethinking the importance and the nature of the high school physics offering. Some of these include a critical shortage of qualified teachers of physics, a preponderance of many small schools in many states where there is not a need for multiple sections of physics (certainly not a whole load for one full-time physics teacher), and budget constraints for equipping a physics laboratory completely. Although several correctives have been proposed and some are in place, there has been little interest in the question: Just what doeshhould a physics course accomplish as preparation for college physics?

Results from the Third and Fourth Assessments of Science by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1978; Hueftle, Rakow, & Welch, 1983) have provided evidence that typical school science experiences result in less student interest, curiosity, ability to act based on evidence, creativity, and ability to use/apply the concepts considered. Some workers have suggested that students have more traits recognized as vital to science prior to their study of formal science (Yager & Penick, 1986; Vargas- Gomez & Yager, 1987; Bonnstetter & Yager, 1985).

The Problem

The University of Iowa has conducted a Summer Science Training Program (SSTP) since receiving NSF support for a program in 1960. Many of these early programs were patterned after the typical college c o m e s . And later, as NSF funding was curtailed, some of the programs were offered as a means of accelerating the education of gifted students. In some cases students were attracted to the summer program in order that other electives could be completed during the senior high school year. In still other cases students (and parents) found that completing a college physics course at the University was a way of completing the requirements not available in their small schools. This situation resulted in an experiment that included students in a two-month summer course-half who had completed high school physics and half who had not.

SSTP administrative staff announced the program as a part of a series of special offerings. The program was advertised as one providing an excellent bridge between

SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 60 1

high school and regular college enrollment, and not advertised as an experiment. Several thousand brochures and application materials were distributed widely in the Midwest and to targeted schools across the United States.

Specific research questions included: (1) What initial differences exist between groups of students who have completed

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

(2) What differences exist between the same groups at the end of two months d collegiate study in physics in terms of physics knowledge, attitude toward study of physics, and use of tutors?

Method

Subjects

SSTP staff and the physics instructional team selected students from a national sample, with half coming from Iowa. About half of the students who applied were admitted. All had a minimum 3.0 high school grade-point average, had received A s in high school science, had scored above the 80th percentile on available standard examinations, and had the support of their high school teachers and counselors. Students were told that some of those selected would have had previous experience with physics and that tutors would be provided for those needing special help. SSTP staff assured the students that the staff would be helpful in assisting all students to be successful with their studies and their first experience with college.

The experiment was conducted over a two-year period. In the first, a total of 30 students participated, 16 who had completed high school physics and 14 who had not. For the second year a total of 30 also participated, 15 who had completed a physics course in high school and 15 who had not.

The students lived in university dormitories and had access to special counselors who lived in the dormitory with them, monitored their study, and provided special assistance and support. All of the counselors were experienced high school teachers. A wide array of recreational activities, excursions, tours, and social events were planned as a means of assisting students with adjusting to college. In addition, all students were also enrolled in a finite mathematics course for two hours each afternoon.

Treatment

The same instructor for general college physics during the academic year, taught both summers. He used the same textbook, laboratory guide, examinations, and teaching procedures as employed during the regular session. The major difference, of course, was the daily schedule that characterizes the summer session. Each day, classes met for a lecture followed by a three-hour laboratory session that was also used for discussions and quizzes. The course used a regular physics lecture room and laboratory.

The course, the instructor, and the mode of instruction were typical of the regular university course, with the only difference being the availability of tutors as needed. Such availability of tutors is not common with the typical college course in general

602 YAGER AND KRAJCIK

physics or any other science area. During the academic year the course enrolls several hundred students each semester. Many students find the course difficult and either drop before completion or do poorly in terms of grades.

At the University of Iowa (and most universities across the United States) the first physics course is taught at two levels of mathematical sophistication: (1) without calculus, or (2) with calculus as prerequisitekorequisite. The freedom to use the language of calculus opens up many possibilities for derivations that are difficult to carry out without calculus. Generally students majoring in physics, chemistry, and engineering are required to take the calculus-level course. Some medical schools have similar expectations, but generally life-science majors take the non-calculus course. The course the students enrolled in in this program was the “without calculus” version.

The two types of physics survey courses cover essentially the same subject matter in two terms. In the first term Newton’s Laws of Motion for point masses and extended isolated objects; vibratory motion of “point objects,” “strings,” “sheets,” and fluids; optical phenomena; and thermodynamic phenomena are covered. In the second term electromagnetic phenomena, wave-particle duality, structure of the atom, atomic spectra, and elementary concepts of nuclear physics are covered. These survey courses rarely succeed in introducing students in any significant way to physicists’ findings which were made after World War 11. The drop-out rate in such courses is usually higher than for other courses. There is ample evidence that a relatively small fraction of students who complete such courses really internalize the physicist’s way of thinking about the ways in which objects and radiations intersect.

A third course in modern physics follows the two introductory terms; generally this course is a third term of a three-term introductory sequence explicitly presented as such. In that case topics from the second term slide into the third term, and more time is concentrated upon the other topics in the first two terms. Also a more complete survey of topics in atomic, nuclear, relativity, and elementary particle physics is offered in the third term.

In the university setting these courses typically involve four large lecture meetings per week, a recitation session per week with a teaching assistant, and a laboratory session per week. All of these courses tend to focus upon the process of mathematically solving textbook problems and getting the correct mathematical answer, by whatever means. Homework and tests tend to focus upon the skills involved in solving such “problems” and getting the correct algebraickithrnetic answer, and only very rarely upon articulation skills. Discussions of social implications and consequences rarely intrude into such courses.

The courses have an associated laboratory that meets once a week for about three hours, and requires a fair number of quantitative reports of experimental results during each term. Usually the successful experiments lead to achieving expected results, rather than to dealing with unexpected situations.

Certainly the typical high school courses have common features in terms of content topics. However, the focus is quite different, as is the instructional format. The high school courses experienced by the students with high school credits in physics can be characterized by the relatively few popular textbooks in use in high schools. Most teachers use such textbooks in excess of 90 percent of the time, and hence the textbooks define the course content and the instruction offered. The student in this experiment who had not enrolled in a high school physics course had not considered the content nor experienced the activities included in standard high school textbooks.

SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 603

Procedures

The participants all completed a physics pretest (one version of the final exam used for general physics) and an attitude instrument before instruction began. Records were kept regarding study time and time spent with a tutor. At the end of the eight- week period all students completed the regular final examination for the course and the same attitude measure used initially. In addition, the physics instructional team assigned grades.

The following information was available from each student as instruction in general college physics began:

(1) information on high school preparation, grades, and class rank (2) Ietters of support from teachers, parents, and school officials (3) pretest score on a form of the final departmental physics examination (4) a score assessing attitude toward study of physics

As the instruction continued during the two-month period, anecdotal information

At the end of the instructional period the following information was collected for was recorded. Weekly tests were administered as well as one midterm examination.

each student:

(1) score on final course examination (2) course grade (3) posttest attitude score (4) number of hours spent with a tutor

These data provided the information for analysis. The specific groups used in analyzing the data included:

Group 1 Students who had completed high school physics and participated in experiment during year 1 ;

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

Group 3 Student who had completed high school physics and participated in experiment during year 2;

Group 4 Students who had not enrolled in high school physics 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 but who have high motivation, ability, and special tutoring available perform as well in a college physics course as high-ability high school students who have experienced high school physics? (2) Do the attitudes these groups of students hold towards science differ at the end of the college physics course?

To answer these general questions the following hypotheses were tested:

(1) No statistical significant differences exist between the means on physics pretest. (2) No statistical significant differences exist between mean scores for the four

groups on the final course examination (posttest).

604 YAGER AND KRAJCIK

No statistical significance differences exist between means of the course grade for the four groups. No statistically significant differences exist among the four groups with respect to the mean number of hours tutored. No statistically significant differences exist among the four means for the pretests measuring attitude towards physics. No statistically significant differences exist among the four means on the posttest designed to measure attitude towards physics.

The Results

Tables I through IV present a summary of the results. Table I provides information concerning the pre- and posttest scores on the physics examination. Table I1 provides similar pre- and posttest information concerning the attitude survey. Table I11 provides comparisons with respect to the final course grades for all four groups. Table IV provides information concerning a comparison among groups with respect to their use of tutors to help with their study and learning.

One-way ANOVA was used to test each of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 2, 3, 5 , and 6 could not be rejected even at the 0.10 level of significance (F3, 56 = 0.99).

Hypothesis 1 was rejected at the 0.05 level (F3, 56 = 95.9). Multiple range tests determined which means differed statistically from each other. The result of this procedure indicates that the mean of Group 1 differs significantly from that of Groups 2 and 4, and the mean of Group 2 differs significantly from that of Groups 1 and 3.

TABLE I Means and Standard Deviations on Pre- and Posttest Scores on College General

Physics Examination

Pretest Source Mean S.D.

Posttest Mean S.D.

Group I 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

Multiple Range Test reveals that the Group I mean is significantly different (at 0.05 level) from the mean for Groups 2 and 4 on pretests; similarly. the Group 2 mean is significantly different (at 0.05 level) from the mean for Groups I and 3.

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

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 nor completed high school physics.

SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 605

TABLE II Means and Standard Deviations on h e - and Posttest Scores on Attitude Survey

Pretest Posttest Source Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Group I 8.69 0.95 8.00 0.73

Group 2 9.00 0.68 8.36 0.50

Group 3 8.67 0.90 8.01 0.70

Group 4 8.73 0.80 8.20 0.68

Multiple Range Tests reveal no two groups are significantly different at the 0.05 level on either the pretests or the posttests.

Group 1 = year one, 16 students had completed high school physics. Group 2 = year one, 14 students had nor 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.

These results indicate that there was a significant difference on the physics pretest between the mean scores of the students who had experienced high school physics and the mean scores of those who had not.

Hypothesis 4 was also rejected at the 0.05 level (F3,56 = 162.7). Again, multiple range tests determined which means differed statistically from each other. The results of these tests, reported in Table IV, indicate that the mean number of hours tutored

TABLE 111 Means and Standard Deviations of Final Course Grade

Source Mean S.D.

Group I 1.56 0.63

Group 2 1.43 0.51

Group 3 1.47 0.52

Group 4 1.53 0.52

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

Numbers Assigned Grades were 1 = A 2 = B 3 - c

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.

606 YAGER AND KRAJCIK

TABLE 1V Mean and Standard Deviation for Re- and Posttest Scores on Hours Spent with Tutors

Source Mean Number of Hours S.D.

Group 1 18.50 3.83

Group 2 58.14 10.11

Group 3 15.13 4.31

Group 4 60.80 8.88

Multiple Range Test revealed that the means for Groups I and 3 were significantly different from the means for both Groups 2 and 4 at the 0.05 level; however, there was no difference between groups 1 and 3 and groups 2 and 4.

Group 1 = year one, 16 students had completed high school physics. Group 2 = year one, 14 students had nor completed high school physics. Group 3 = year two. 15 students had Completed high school physics. Group 4 = year two, 15 students had nor completed high school physics.

for Group 1 was significantly different than that of Groups 2 and 4 and that the mean number of hours tutored for Group 2 differed significantly from that of Groups 1 and 3. These results indicate that there was a significant difference between the mean number of hours tutored of the students who had experienced high school physics and those who had not.

Interpretation

The results demonstrate that high-ability secondary students can succeed in a college physics course as well as students with similar ability and motivation who have completed a year-long course in high school physics. Of course, it is important to observe that the situation was not a normal college one. Counselors were available in the dormitories for more assistance and direction than that given to typical college students. And tutors were readily available for extra help for those desiring it. Certainly, the students who had not had the benefit of a year-long course in physics in high school utilized these tutors and spent more time in studying than those who had just completed a high school course during the preceding academic year, even though both groups had equal access. Use of such tutors with the regularly offered physics courses is suggested. Could this use reduce the drop rate for students who register initially? Could test scores and general student performances be improved with use of tutors?

Although the students who completed high school physics performed better on a pretest; this advantage had completely vanished after two months of college study. There were no differences in the final examination or in the course grades assigned. For the groups studied and in the environment provided, any advantage held by students with experience with high school physics had vanished eight weeks later. 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 studied physics or not prior to

SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 607

the college course. This observation of no difference was observed initially-before college study-as well as at the end after completion of the college course. Since the students who had not completed a high school physics course spent much more time in study and were described by counselors as having more anxiety, the failure for differences in attitude to appear is remarkable. Of course, this could be a reflection of the instrument.

The results of this experiment suggest that the calls for modifying the high school offerings should be taken more seriously. For instance, these results indicate that physics teachers can spend more time developing a strong foundation of some essential physics concepts. There is nothing to suggest (for the type of students enrolled in the Iowa program) that failure to complete the standard high school course will cause problems with study of physics at the college level. Although observations were not possible for many of the students enrolled in the Iowa program after they had enrolled as regular college students in institutions across the U.S., the summer staff hypothesized that the study habits developed by the groups who had not experienced high school physics were superior to those in the other groups. Many felt that the “no high school physics” student might actually surpass the students with high school experience in future courses.

Conclusion

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:

(1) Students who have high school physics score higher on physics examinations given as pretests prior to studying college physics.

(2) Posttest scores and final course grades are no different for students who have completed high school physics and those who have not at the end of a two- month college experience with physics.

(3) The pretest and posttest attitude measures are not different for students enrolled in college physics for those with and those without prior experience with physics in high school.

(4) Students who do not complete physics in high school spend much more time in studying and utilize tutors to a far greater extent than do students enrolled in the same class who have completed high school physics.

The results of this study resemble those from a similar study involving the learning of college chemistry (Yager, Snider, & Krajcik, 1988). Here, the results demonstrate that high-ability secondary students who have not studied high school chemistry can succeed in college chemistry as well as students with similar abilities and motivation who have completed high school chemistry. The results invite greater experimentation with college-preparatory offerings in secondary schools. The results also invite ex- perimentation with and greater use of tutors for college physics courses enrolling regular college students.

References

Bonnstetter, R.J. & Yager, R.E. (1985). A profile of excellence: Teachers of exemplary programs in elementary science. Science and Children, 22(8), 45-46.

Herron, J.D., DeRose, J.V., Harris, J., Heikkinen, H. W., Kallus, D.J. & Mellon, E.K. (1985). Ideals in teaching chemistry. In Penick, J.E. & Krajcik, J. (Eds.), Focus

608 YAGER AND KRAJCIK

on Excellence: Chemistry. Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association,

Hueftle, S.J., Rakow, S.J. &Welch, W.W. (1983). ImagesofScience:A Summary of Results from the 1981 -82 National Assessment in Science. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Research and Evaluation Center.

Lunetta, V.N. & Poduska, E.L. (1984). The role of applied physics in introductory physics courses. Physics Education, 19, 241-246.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (1978). The Third Assessment of Science, 1976-77. Denver CO: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

National Science Teachers Association (1987). Criteria for Excellence. Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.

Penick, J.E. (Ed.) (1984). Focus on Excellence: Physics, 2( 1 ) . Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.

Penick, J.E. & Krajcik, J.S. (Eds.) (1985). Focus on Excellence: Chemistry, 3(1). Washington D.C. : National Science Teachers Association.

Penick, J.E. & Lunetta, V.N. (Eds.) (1984). Focus on Excellence: Physical Science, l(4). Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.

Stake, R.E. & Easley, J. (1978). Case Studies in Science Education, Volumes 1 and II (Stock No. 038-000-00376-3). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vargas-Gomez, R.G. & Yager, R.E. (1987). Attitude of students in exemplary programs toward their science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

Weiss, I.R. (1978). Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation (Stock No. 038-000-00364). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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

Yager, R.E., Snider, B. & Krajcik, J. (1988). Relative success in college chemistry for students who experienced a high school course in chemistry and those who had not. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 387-396.

pp. 5-10.

24(1), 87-91.

Manuscript accepted January 17, 1989.