VOL. 6, No. 12 FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE CEEMISTRY 2189

FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE CHEMISTRY AND STUDENTS FROM THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE

Many freshmen students from the School of Agriculture (Oregon State Agricultural College) do rather poorly in first-year chemistry. During the Fall Quarter, 1928-1929, grades made by students in agriculture are shown (Table I) in comparison with those from schools of Pharmacy, Chemical Engineering, and Mining Engineering.

TABLE I

GENERAE CHEMISTRY GRADES FOR FIRST TERM . Drop a t start

No. of % E Above Pass- Below School students % A % B % C % D 60-70% % F ins % Pas&rg %

Chemical Eng. 39 21 38 26 13 2 0 0 0 Pharmacy 68 9 24 16 22 3 15 4 6 Agriculture 80 3 20 15 27 4 21 8 2 Mines 13 0 2 3 8 3 1 8 2 3 0 8

It will be observed that only 65% of the students in the School of Agri- culture passed, that 21% failed, and 10yo dropped, while 61% of the stu- dents in Mining Engineering, 72% of the School of Pharmacy, and 97.5% of the students in the School of Chemical Engineering passed. The per- formance of students from the School of Mines (13 students only) is no better than that of the students from the Scho81 of Agriculture (80 stu- dents). However, these data are less significant because of the small number of studentsof mining. The percentage of D grades in the School of Agriculture is also high.

During the second quarter of the year a serious attempt was made to find the reason for the low quality of work performed by students from the School of Agriculture. This effort was made following the mid-term examination (7th week) at which time the performance of these students was unusually poor. (See Table 11.)

TABLE I1

SECOND TERM Mm-TERM GRADES Grad- made-average of two tests

School No. 90-100% 80-90% 70-80% BO-lO% 50-60% '050%

Chem. Eng. 35 57 24 13 4 1 1 Pharmacy 49 28 27 21 14 7 3 Mining Eng. 9 13 19 44 6 12 6 Agriculture 63 8 15 24 28 14 11

It will be observed that more than 50% of the Agricultural students were below 70% (the passing grade) a t mid-term, while 25% of Mmes students,

24y0 of the Pharmacy students, and but 6% of the students of Chemical Engineering were below 70%.

The psychological rating of the students in the four schools listed is given in Table 111.

TABLE 111

RATING OF CEIEMISTRY STUDENTS BASED W O N EX~INATION GIVEN BY PSYCHOLCGY DEPARTMENT

NO, of 9'. % % School students 1st q?artile 2nd q&rtde 8rd quartile 4th quartile

Agriculture 75 9 21 29 40 Mines 9 11 44 33 11 Pharmacy 64 16 33 20 31 Chemical Eng. 39 51 28 13 8

There can be no question but that we have here data which indict the agricultural student. While psychological examinations are not above criticism, there is sufficient reason to believe that students in the first quartile (Table 111) are capable of doing better work, and that students in the fourth quartile, especially those extremely low, are considerably handi- capped mentally and ordinarily do inferior work. Some students in the fourth quartile have been known to do A work in chemistry, but these are exceptions. The quality of persistence in purpose and effort of the slow student is not ordinarily measured by a psychological examination. While Table I11 indicates a "why" for the low quality of work of the agricultural student, it is hardly sufficient to say th$ they were "just plain dumb." I t would hardly be expected after a study of Table I11 that following the removal of 35y0 of the agricultural students at the close of the first quarter's work (Table I) over 50% of those remaining to take chemistry (Table 11) would do work below passing.

In order to determine, if possible, causes for the unsatisfactory work of the students in agriculture, the instructors of these students, Messrs. Glen C. Ware, Leon E. Bowe, Rex E. Lothrop, and the writer, conferred and devised a questionnaire. They hoped that by analyzing and tabulating data from a comprehensive questionnaire instructors and students would have information which would be of real value. A summary of the ques- tionnaire follows this paragraph. After tabulation the results were pre- sented to the agricultural students and there were indications that they benefited to some extent as a result.

In securing this information the students did not sign the questionnaire. They were requested to answer the questions to the best of their ability. The students had the proper attitude and their answers were sincere. The papers were divided into two groups, one consisting of the 28 poorer students, the other consisting of the 29 better students.

The questions are divided into five divisions:

(1) The student prior to college enrolment. (2) The study conditions of the student. (3) Relation of student to his college work. (4) Relation of student to chemistry. (5) Criticisms and suggestions from the student.

The Questionnaire Part I. The Stzulrmt before Entering College-

Upper half 29 students

1. From large high schools From small high schools

2. 1928 H. S. graduates going directly to college Students graduating from H. S. prior to 1928

3. Type of H. S. student (personal estimate) Good Fair Poor

4. Chemistry studied in H. S. Yes No

5. Physics studied in H. S. Yes No

6. "Student athletes'' in H. S. Yes 7. Did you study hard in H. S.? Yes 9

No 19

We find the same proportion of students from the two groups coming from large and small high schools. It appears that students who allow a year or more to elapse before enrolling in collgge do better work. The better students in high school are the better students in college. Those who had chemistry and physics in high school do better in college chemistry. Previous investigators1 have found that there is llyo diierence between these groups. The athletes appear to be the poorer students. The con- fession from two-thirds of the students of both groups that they did not study hard in high school is startling.

Part II. The Study and Living Conditions of the Stvdenl in CoUege-

Upper half Lower half 29 students 28studenu

1. Location Fraternity 10 13 Private home 11 10 Dormitory 8 5

2. Number of students in study room Few 23 16 Many 6 8

3. Place to study: Is it good? Yes 29 26 Is desk well lighted? Ye? 23 17

' "Report of Committee on Instruction in Agriculture, Home Economics, and Mechanic Arts of Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities, 1928" (Dr. E. H. Shinn, Washington, D. C., Secretary).

Upper half Lower half 29 students 28 students

Is chair comfortable? Yes 20 12 Are heat and ventilation

0. K.? Yes 18 Fair 10 Poor 1

4. Do other studenrq distract you from your studies? Yes 13

5. Do you have a regular study schedule in- cluding study periods for each subject? Yes 8

No 21 6. Do you study regularly during your free

periods during the day? Yes 14

There appears to be but little difference between the two groups in regard to their study and living conditions in college. The fraternities seem to have a few more of the poorer students. The study chair of the poorer student is not as comfortable as he would wish and the ventilation in his room is not as good. While the questionnaire does not seek to reveal those using tobacco it is probable that use of tobacco and poor ventilation correlate. In both groups 50Yo of the students are distracted from their studies, approximately 33% have a regular study schedule including study periods for each subject and over 50% do not study during their free periods during the day. It is regrettable that the questionnaire did not find out their activities during those hours.

Part III. The Student and His College Work- * Upper half 29 students

1. Time spent in social activities. Much 2 2. Do you get 8 hours sleep regularly? No 15 3. Do you plan your time and stbdy ma-

terials in order to study effectively? No 10 4. Is college work too heavy for you? Yes ti 5. Is college work interesting? No 3 6. What subjects are most interesting?

Agricultural 19 Chemistry 4

7. Is your health good? No 1 8. Are you "out" for an athletic team? Yes 6 9. Are you working for your board or room? Yes 4

10. Occupation of parent or guardian. Rural 15 Business and Professional 13

11. Plan for l i e work. Rural life 17 Undecided 4

12. Why are you in college? For an education 28

Lower ball 28studenfn

5 16

Although students in agriculture are not social lions, a few more of the lower students spend too much time in social activities. It is an interesting

fact that 50% of the students do not get eight hours sleep regularly. Over 30% do not plan their time and study systematically. The poorer students find the college work too heavy for them and have indicated an amount of outside activities slightly greater than those of the better group. That only five students of both groups find chemistry the most interesting subject might be expected.

Part I V. The Relation ofthe Student to Chemistry- Upper half Lower half 29 students 28 3tudents

1. Do you like chemistry? No 2. Would you take chemistry if it were not

required? No 3. Do you like laboratory work and does it

help you in chemistry? No 4. Is chemistry a difficult subject? Yes 5. How many hours per week do you de-

vote to the study of chemistry? 1-5 hr. 5-12 hr.

6. Can you recall your lessons from day to day? No

7. Are you putting your maximum effort upon this subject? No

8. Do you believe that chemistry is a funda- mental, basic science and necessary for the pursuit of agriculture? No

The students that do well in chemistry like the subject and are willing enough to take it. Over 50% of the poorer students do not like it and have "greatness thrust upon them."

The number of students believing that chemistry is not a fundamental, basic science and necessary for the pursuit of agriculture agrees closely with the number of students that do not like chemistry. Most of the students state that chemistry is a diicult subject. The lower students devote more time to the study of chemistry, but are less able to recall their lessons from day to day. The majority of students thimk that they are not putting their maximum effort upon this subject.

About 25% of both groups do not like laboratory work and feel that it does them little good. While this percentage is not high, i t does indicate that "all is not right with the world." Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, has criticized the so-called scientific method of teaching employed by teachers of natural science subjects. It is probably true that the "laboratory method should be the method of teaching the natural sciences, but that we are nat handling the laboratory method properly. Rather than criticize Dr. Butler for his stand, it would probably be better to make a thorough investigation of methods of teaching by the laboratory method.

Part V. Criticism and Suggestiar from the Students- Upper half Lower hall 28 students 28 students

1. Is your instructor helpful and sympathetic? Yes 28 27 2. Do faculty members from the School of

Agriculture encourage you to master chemistry? Yes 16 12

3. Do we go over the work too rapidly? Yes 16 23 4. Do we expect too much of you? Yes 8 11 5. Are you overloaded with work? Yes 12 17 6. What parts of chemistry are most difficult?

Equations 8 15 Problems 6 9 Theory 5 7

7. How could we help you? What changes would you suggest? Both group answers combined.

(a) Go slower 12 (e) Put shorter lecture notes on ( b ) Give less laboratory work 9 board 5 (c) Give more drill 7 ( f l Give more problems 4 ( d ) Make shorter examina- (g) Expect less of Ag. students 9

tions 6 (h) Be more practical 1 8. Why are you not doing passing wark in chemistry? Answers from failing

students. (a) Not enough study 9 (e) Slow 3 (6) Overloaded 7 ( f l Poor health 2 (c) Poor grounding in high (g) Poor in mathematics 1

school 3 (h) Poor in English 1 (d) Poor memory 3

The students are practically unanimous% stating that the instructor is helpful and sympathetic. This was undoubtedly true. A survey made in 1928' of twenty-eight land grant institutions from all sections of the United States places this institution third in efficiency in the teaching of general college chemistry. The chief criticisms from the students were that we go over the work too rapidly (from two-thirds of the students); that they were overloaded with work (from one-half of the s t u d d s ) ; and that we expect too much of them (from one-third of the students). It was rather encouraging to note that members of the faculty of the School of Agriculture encourage the students to study and master chemistry. There was a rumor to the effect that this was not the case.

Conclusions

In summarizing, a few conclusions may be drawn: 1. Many students from the School of Agriculture do poorly in beginning

college chemistry. 2. Students from the School of Agriculture are overloaded. We go too

fast and expect too much from them.

VOL. 6, No. 12 FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE CHEMISTRY 2195

3. The lower students could possibly be assisted by closely checking up on the following nine points:

(1) See that they have a regular study schedule. 2, Sec that thry are not distracted from study. t3 S:e that t h ~ y study regularly during their free pcriu Is . . ~ ~

(4) See that heatinr: and ventilating conditions in the study room are correct. ( 5 ) See that they obtain eight hours sleep each night. (6) See that they take fewer credits. (7) Try to make them like chemistry. (8) Try to make them see that chemistry is a basic science. (9) Try to inculcate proper study procedures.

4. While the purpose of this paper is not to criticize previous work of the student in high school, a few points in this regard should be mentioned.

(1) Better work in college chemistry would result if more high schools in the State of Oreaon offered courses in the basic subjects, chemistry and physics.

(2 Less than one-third of the students stltc that thcy studied hard in high school. It is rcasonnble to btlirvc that if the students in h i ~ h school were ~ i v m better cuurw, in chemistry and physics, mathematics, and English, and made to study, better work in college would result.