Chemistry 51-P Data The Benefits of a Preparatory Course Course - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Chemistry 51-P Data The Benefits of a Preparatory Course Course Results Post-Survey Results Susan King 1 Future Work Kameryn Denaro 2 1 Department of Chemistry, UCI 2 Teaching and Learning Research Center, UCI August 3, 2016

Table of Contents Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data 1 Data Course Results Post-Survey Course Results Results 2 Future Work Post-Survey Results 3 Future Work 4

Data Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Chemistry 51A-Fall 2015 Data Course Results 1,248 students Post-Survey Results · 75 students took Chemistry 51P Future Work · 1,173 students did not take Chemistry 51P 3 instructors · Section C and D were taught by the same instructor

Table of Contents Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data 1 Data Course Results Post-Survey Course Results Results 2 Future Work Post-Survey Results 3 Future Work 4

Grade in Chemistry 51A Chemistry 51-P King & 4 4 Denaro Data 3 3 Grade in Chemistry 51A Grade in Chemistry 51A Course Results 2 2 Post-Survey Results Future Work 1 1 0 0 A B C D No Yes Section Chemistry Prep Course in Summer · The medians are the same across Chemistry 51A sections. · The median is higher for Chemistry 51P students compared to those who did not take Chemistry 51P. · Outliers are denoted with a ◦ .

Chemistry 51A: Average Grade Points Chemistry 51-P Chem 51P No Yes King & Denaro A 2.51 2.82 Data n = 306 n = 29 Course Results Post-Survey Results B 2.39 2.85 Future Work Section n = 159 n = 13 C 2.77 2.87 n = 381 n = 19 D 2.76 3.27 n = 327 n = 14

Chemistry 51A: Average Grade Points Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Profile Plot 4 Data Course Results Post-Survey 3 Results Average Grade Points Future Work 2 1 Summer Prep No Yes 0 A B C D Section

Chemistry 51A: Average Grade Points Chemistry 51-P King & Section A Section B Denaro 4 4 Data Average Grade Points Average Grade Points 3 3 Course Results 2 2 1 1 Post-Survey Results 0 0 No Yes No Yes Future Work Summer Prep Course Summer Prep Course Section C Section D 4 4 Average Grade Points Average Grade Points 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 No Yes No Yes Summer Prep Course Summer Prep Course

Linear Mixed Effects Model using REML Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data Fixed effects: Course Results Value Std.Error t-value p-value Post-Survey Intercept 2.6150 0.0906 28.8787 0.0000 Results Chem 51P 0.3161 0.1167 2.7098 0.0068 Future Work Random effects: Section Residual Standard Deviation: 0.1710 0.9766

Table of Contents Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data 1 Data Course Results Post-Survey Course Results Results 2 Future Work Post-Survey Results 3 Future Work 4

Post-Survey Results Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro 36 students took the Post-Survey (48% response rate) Data Course Results · 29 took Chem 1A, Chem 1B, & Chem 1C at UCI Post-Survey · 3 took general chemistry at another college Results Future Work · 3 passed the AP exam in high school and therefore skipped over Chem 1A at UCI · 1 took some general chemistry at another college and some general chemistry at UCI

On a scale of 1 - 5, how certain are you of the following? (1 = not at all certain; 5 = very certain) Chemistry 51-P King & 1 2 3 4 5 Denaro Frequency 0 1 9 9 17 Data Percent 0% 3% 25% 25% 47% Course Results Table : I was able to master the skills taught in this course. Post-Survey Results Future Work 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency 0 2 6 13 15 Percent 0% 6% 17% 36% 42% Table : I was able to figure out how to do the most difficult material in this course.

On a scale of 1 - 5, how certain are you of the following? (1 = not at all certain; 5 = very certain) Chemistry 51-P King & 1 2 3 4 5 Denaro Frequency 0 1 5 6 24 Data Percent 0% 3% 14% 17% 67% Course Results Table : Doing well in this course was important to me. Post-Survey Results Future Work 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency 1 1 9 4 21 Percent 3% 3% 25% 11% 58% Table : Taking this course helped me to feel more confident entering Chem 51A.

On a scale of 1 - 5, how certain are you of the following? (1 = not at all certain; 5 = very certain) Chemistry 51-P 1 2 3 4 5 King & Frequency 2 2 12 8 12 Denaro Percent 6% 6% 33% 22% 33% Data Course Results Table : Taking this course only helped me to perform better on the Post-Survey first midterm in Chem 51A. Results Future Work 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency 1 0 9 6 20 Percent 3% 0% 25% 17% 56% Table : I had an easier time with Lewis structures and resonance structures than my classmates who did not take Preparation for Organic Chemistry.

On a scale of 1 - 5, how certain are you of the following? (1 = not at all certain; 5 = very certain) Chemistry 51-P 1 2 3 4 5 King & Denaro Frequency 1 4 13 3 15 Data Percent 3% 11% 36% 8% 42% Course Results Table : Taking this course helped me to perform better overall in Post-Survey Chem 51A. Results Future Work 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency 21 4 7 2 2 Percent 58% 11% 19% 06% 06% Table : Taking this course had no effect on my performance in Chem 51A.

Post-Survey Results Chemistry 51-P King & Table : Student suggestions for improving the Chemistry 51P course Denaro Data Suggestion Frequency Course Results Include more organic chemistry topics 11 Post-Survey Great as is 9 Results More written practice problems 8 Future Work Harder problems 4 Longer class length 2 Online interaction with other students 2 Discussion section 1 Condense online content 1 More feedback on assignments 1 Slower pace 1

Table of Contents Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data 1 Data Course Results Post-Survey Course Results Results 2 Future Work Post-Survey Results 3 Future Work 4

Future Collaborations with the TLRC Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro Data · Compare the students who took Chemistry 51P to those who Course Results did not based on performance in Chemistry 1A, 1B, and 1C Post-Survey Results grades Future Work · Use Institutional demographic data to build a more complex model · Modify the Chemistry Preparatory Course

Acknowledgements Chemistry 51-P King & Denaro · National Science Foundation, Grant Number: 1535300, Data 2015-2020 Course Results · Department of Chemistry, UCI Post-Survey Results · School of Education, UCI Future Work · Teaching and Learning Research Center, UCI · Mark Warschauer · Fernando Rodriguez · Lynn Riemer