How General Chemistry Students Perceive Their Ability and Exam Performance
By: Trevor Bland
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Chris Bauer
University of New Hampshire, Department of Chemistry
Abstract
Survey
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
very bottom
2)
|
I’m exactly
at the average
3)
|
I’m at the
very top
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
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
the lowest
4)
|
My score is
exactly in the
middle
|
My score is
at the very top
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.
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.
Scores
PLTL Exam 1- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability
Perceived Ability
Perceived Ability
1.20
1.00
0.80
Series1
0.60
diag
0.40
Linear (diag)
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.80
Series1
0.60
Series2
0.40
Linear (Series2)
0.20
0.00
1.20
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Actual Ability
Actual Ability
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
Percieved Ability
1.20
1.00
0.80
Series1
0.60
Linear (diag)
0.40
Linear (Linear (diag))
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Category
Definition
Interrupted Study
Student cites being ill or having a family emergency.
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.
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
Other Group
Count of Group Exam Number
Comment
1
2
1
3
7
4
8
5
1
6
10
7
8
8
28
9
13
10
15
11
2
12
2
13
14
2
15
16
(blank)
14
Grand Total
111
Id
1
2
Also the
PLTL Group
2
2
8
11
11
11
10
21
13
3
2
5
2
1
14
114
3 Grand Total
3
20
35
15
34
14
26
4
25
6
24
12
61
12
38
1
19
4
5
12
1
3
1
4
2
2
2
2
8
36
103
328
Count of Group Exam Number
Comment
1
2
3
19
4
13
5
1
6
24
7
15
8
40
9
18
10
20
11
3
12
6
13
2
14
15
16
2
(blank)
14
Grand Total
177
2
15
9
16
17
11
42
23
7
1
10
4
2
2
14
173
3 Grand Total
2
2
36
70
21
43
14
31
7
48
9
35
25
107
21
62
2
29
2
6
5
21
1
7
4
6
3
3
4
8
16
44
172
522
1.00
0.00
0.20
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.
Green are comments that appeared over time while red
comments are ones that disappeared.
PLTL Exam 3- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability
1.20
0.00
0.00
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 problemsolving 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
Other Exam 1- Actual Ability vs. Perceived Ability
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.
Categories
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.
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.
Data Background
PLTL
1.00
1.20
Actual Ability
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.
Conclusion and Acknowledgements
The students in this group decided not
to take PLTL and instead did study
hours outside of class such as selforganized 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.
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.