TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008

www.PosterPresentations.com

How General Chemistry Students Perceive Their Ability and Exam PerformanceBy: Trevor Bland

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Chris BauerUniversity of New Hampshire, Department of Chemistry

Abstract

I looked at students’ performances on their exams and how this correlates to their explanations on why they thought they scored a certain grade on that exam, their perceived ability on the exam, and participation in out of class study activities such as Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL), working with a tutor, or self organized study groups (SOSG’s). After each exam, a student would comment on how they did on the exam and why they thought they achieved what they did. Each comment was placed into a category in order to count and compare the types of explanations. These comments were then compared to the students’ actual exam score and what type of study activity they were in. The intent is to get insight into student motivation to learn and course performance.

Hypothesis

Students are more likely to perceive and score higher on an exam if they are involved in a group from the start such as PLTL, as opposed to a self-organized study group or review sessions.

Data Background

The data that was used in this study consisted of students enrolled in Chemistry 403, which is a general chemistry course. 70% of the students that responded to the study are freshman. 60% of the students in this study are enrolled in the COLSA school, or College of Life Sciences and Agriculture. The survey used to gather the data was attached to the end of the exam, and students were encouraged to take it, as there were points added to their overall grade for completing the survey. The survey was completed right after the exam, ensuring accurate, true responses.

PLTL

PLTL or Peer Led Team Learning, is a form of a study group, led by an undergrad that has previously taken Chem 403 and done well in it. The leader does not have the answers to the problems given; the purpose of this is to have the students try out problem-solving strategies on their own to come to a group consensus on an answer. The group is made up of 8-10 students, all of which have the same professor. The purpose of PLTL is to provide a group dynamic with a common interest in learning chemistry without knowing the answers and to pursue the goal of doing well in the course.

Other

The students in this group decided not to take PLTL and instead did study hours outside of class such as self-organized study groups (SOSG’s) or review sessions. In SOSG’s, groups of students would get together to work on problems such as homework, and arrived at a solution as a group. Students recorded their hours to the professor as a means of records. In review sessions, students went and participated in a review session of relevant material lead by the professor.

Survey

Scores

PLTL Exam 1- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Actual Ability

Perc

eive

d Ab

ility Series1

diag

Linear (diag)

PLTL Exam 3- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Actual Ability

Perc

eive

d Ab

ility Series1

Series2

Linear (Series2)

Other Exam 1- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Actual Ability

Perc

ieve

d Ab

ility Series1

Linear (diag)

Linear (Linear (diag))

The scores used in these comparisons were the actual scores versus the perceived scores. The actual score was a raw score from the exam, converted into a percentile, with the perceived ability converted in the same way. This allowed for direct comparison between an exam score and a perceived score.

Categories

Students commented at the end of the exam on how they thought they did during the exam and why. David Wilk entered the data and defined the comments, while I refined them. Once Dr. Bauer and I agreed on the categories, we looked at the full data sheet of students and rated each comment separately. Once this was done, our results were compared, with an 80% rating of matches.

Conclusion and Acknowledgements

From the graphs, it looks like that even though not everyone is on the line, students on the lower end of the exam score tend to overrate themselves more so than the students on the higher end of the exam score. Additionally, students in the PLTL groups did this less, showing that the students were more accurate in perceiving their scores than the students in the other group. Also, throughout the three exams, students in both the PLTL group and other group tended to attribute their confidence and chemistry background less after the first exam.

Dr. Bauer is the professor who gathered the information from students at the end of each exam.

David Wilk is the student who input the data and defined the categories.

Trevor Bland is the student responsible for refining the categories, interpreting the data, and putting the poster together, with the help of Dr. Bauer.

Category Definition Id 1 Interrupted Study Student cites being ill or having a family emergency.

2

Difficulty of Exam/ Course

Student says that the exam is easy or hard or that they struggled or talk about the number of questions they got right or wrong.

3

Exam to class/ study material comparison

Student comment that exam questions don’t match class presentations or they say that they didn’t study the right things

4

Previous exam or Quiz

The student refers to basing their judgment on a previous quiz score or test score.

5

Comparison to Classmates

Class average is used as a judgment of their performance. Also the comparison of themselves to the class or classmates

6

Length of Exam The length is mentioned; the time needed to complete the exam is mentioned.

7

Confidence They use the word “confidence” or “knew the material” or their “feeling” in describing how they were prepared or performed after seeing the exam.

8

Preparation They mention what they studied, how they studied, or how much they studied.

9

Chemistry Background

Mentions their chemistry history such as high school chemistry courses, previous chemistry related courses on campus or any chemistry related experiences that help

10

Test Freeze/ Anxiety Student mentions that nervousness or anxiety got in the way of focusing on the exam

11

Wording/ Confusing Questions

Student says the wording of a question confuse them so they weren’t ready for the question, even if they state they knew the material well or not.

12

Guessing Student instead of saying they didn’t understand a particular problem, merely states that they guessed, with no reason to why or in self-assessment they guessed at where they were

13

Understanding of Chemistry

The student expresses that they do a lot of preparation but don’t understand Chemistry as a subject. Statements such as “I don’t get Chemistry” pop up.

14

Teacher Issues The student puts the blame on the teacher instead of themselves, stating things such as “Teacher can’t teach.”

15

Test-Taking Ability Student indicates that they are not good at taking tests 16

Count of Group Exam NumberComment 1 2 3 Grand Total

2 1 2 33 7 8 20 354 8 11 15 345 1 11 14 266 10 11 4 257 8 10 6 248 28 21 12 619 13 13 12 38

10 15 3 1 1911 2 2 412 2 5 5 1213 2 1 314 2 1 1 415 2 216 2 2

(blank) 14 14 8 36Grand Total 111 114 103 328

Count of Group Exam NumberComment 1 2 3 Grand Total

2 2 23 19 15 36 704 13 9 21 435 1 16 14 316 24 17 7 487 15 11 9 358 40 42 25 1079 18 23 21 62

10 20 7 2 2911 3 1 2 612 6 10 5 2113 2 4 1 714 2 4 615 3 316 2 2 4 8

(blank) 14 14 16 44Grand Total 177 173 172 522

This page counts as a course survey. Completing it honestly and completed earns you about 1 point toward your course grade. It will take you about 2 minutes to complete.

Do this AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED your exam. This page will be separated from your exam and not considered in your exam results. Your name _______________________________ Student ID # ____________________ 1) Estimate your ability in the subject of chemistry relative to the average student in this class by circling a percentile ranking. 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99 | | | I’m at the I’m exactly I’m at the very bottom at the average very top 2) Estimate what your score on this exam will be, if normalized to 100 points, and traditional grades: < 60 (F), 61 – 70 (D), 71 – 80 (C), 81 – 90 (B), 91 --- 100 (A). 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99 3) Estimate what your score on this exam will be in comparison with the other students in this class by circling a percentile ranking. 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99 | | | My score is My score is My score is the lowest exactly in the at the very top middle 4) Write one or two sentences explaining what you are basing your estimate of your performance on.

This was the survey that was used at the end of each exam, with students rating themselves by their ability in the subject of chemistry, the comparison with other students, and a chance for themselves to explain why they predicted what they said. Numbers 2 and 3 were not used in this study, as they proved to be redundant.

Other Group PLTL Group

Green are comments that appeared over time while red comments are ones that disappeared.