1. TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008 www.PosterPresentations.com 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 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 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. 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 GroupPLTL Group Green are comments that appeared over time while red comments are ones that disappeared.