relationships between achievement and selective variables in a chemistry course for nonmajors

Relationships Between Achievement and Selective Variables ina Chemistry Course for Nonmajors

Saouma B. BoujaoudeDepartment of Science and TeachingSyracuse University

FrankJ.GiulianoDepartment of Science and TeachingSyracuse University________

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between students’ approaches tostudying, prior knowledge, logical thinking ability, and gender and their performance in a nonmajors’collegefreshman chemistry course. Subjectsfor this study were 220 students (128females and92 males)enrolled in the second semester of afreshman chemistry course for nonmajors at aprivate university inNew York State. Instruments used in this study included seven subscales of the Approaches to StudyingInventory and the Test of Logical Thinking {TOUT). The students’ grades on an hour-long exam earlyin the semester were used as measures of the students’ prior knowledge, while the semester cumulative

final examination scores were used as measures of achievement in chemistry. Students in this study hadslightly higher scores on reproducing orientation than on meaning orientation, a pattern that confirmsEntwistle and Ramsden’s (1983) findings with a similar group of nonmajors. The results of a stepwisemultiple regression showed that prior knowledge, TOLT scores, and meaning orientation accounted/or32% of the variance on the final examination scores.

The relationship among prior knowledge, formalreasoning ability, and achievement in science hasbeen a topic of interest in science education researchfor several years (e.g. Chandran. Treagust, & Tobin,1987; Lawson, 1983; Zeitoun, 1989). Lawson (1983)established that prior knowledge, disembeddingability, and belief in evolution were better predictorsthan formal reasoning ability of overall achievementin evolution and natural selection. Overall achieve-ment in this study was measured by a test consistingof multiple choice, computational, and essay items.However, Lawson showed that formal reasoningability was the best predictor of computational items,while prior knowledge and belief in evolution werethe best predictors of performance on multiple choiceitems. Chandran et al. (1987) demonstrated thatformal reasoning ability and prior knowledge weresignificant predictors of performance on chemicalcalculations, laboratory applications, and chemistrycontent knowledge questions, with formal reasoningability consistently a better predictor of performance.Zeitoun (1989) showed that, while both prior knowl-edge and formal reasoning ability were significantpredictors of achievement in molecular genetics, theeffect of prior knowledge on achievement exceededthat of formal reasoning ability. Zeitoun used a

multiple choice content test to measure achievement.Finally, Mitchell and Lawson (1988) concluded thatformal reasoning ability was the best predictor ofachievement in genetics.

These seemingly contradictory results can beaccounted for by the different tasks used to measureachievement (Falls & Voss, 1985). In this respect,Mitchell and Lawson (1987) assert that the relation-ship between cognitive factors, such as prior knowl-edge and formal reasoning ability, and achievementis not simple. Rather, "both cognition and achieve-ment could be viewed as composed of a subset ofindependent and dependent variables each with theirown set of interrelationships" (p. 24). For example,the fact that formal reasoning ability is the bestpredictor of genetics may mean that the tasks used tomeasure achievement in genetics require students touse the hypothetico-deductive thinking.

In other research, Clarice (1986), Entwistle andKozeki (1985), Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), andWatkins (1983, 1984, 1986), investigated the rela-tionships between students’ approaches to studyingand their achievement in different areas of the curric-ulum. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Ramsdenand Entwistle (1981) derived three approaches tostudying by interviewing college students.1 These

^ cognitive psychology research, the investigation of students’ study processes is rooted in the idea of levels of processing (Craik &Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Watkins, 1973). On the other hand, the research of Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) is theoretically rooted inthe tradition that derives categories of students’ approaches to studying from qualitative analyses of students’ approaches to studyingfrom qualitative analyses of students’ reports of their own study processes.

School Science and Mathematics

Approaches to Studying

were: a meaning orientation (MO), a reproducingorientation (RO), and an achieving orientation (AO).Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) described the mean-ing orientation as "deep approach out of interest" (p.51), and the reproducing orientation as a "surface,instrumental approach" (p. 51). Achieving orienta-tion was described as a "strategic approach" with"hope for success" (Entwisde & Kozeki, 1985). Thevalidity of these orientations was confirmed byHarper and Kember (1989), Kember and Harper(1987), Speth and Brown (1988), and Watkins(1983).

The studies reported by Entwistle and Ramsden(1983) and Entwisde and Kozeki (1985), conductedin the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, andHungary, suggest that students’ approaches tostudying have significant relationships with achieve-ment and persistence in different subject areas at boththe university and high school levels.

An important yet litde researched area is therelationship among students’ approaches to studying,prior knowledge, and logical thinking ability andtheir achievement in chemistry, as well as the rela-tionships among the above variables and gender.While the relationship between cognitive factors,such as formal reasoning ability and prior knowl-edge, and achievement has been investigated in avariety of disciplines, students’ approaches tostudying is a construct that has not been investigatedin the United States. If students’ approaches tostudying are found to be significant predictors ofstudent achievement in chemistry, over and aboveformal reasoning ability and prior knowledge, thenremedial action for those students who have undesir-able approaches to studying may be useful (Kember& Harper, 1987; Harper & Kember, 1986).

Consequently, the two main purposes of thisstudy were (a) to investigate the relationships amongstudents’ approaches to studying, prior knowledge,logical thinking ability, and performance in a fresh-man nonmajors chemistry course; and (b) to explorethe gender differences on the same variables.

Method

SubjectsSubjects for this study were 220 students (128

females and 92 males, average age 18.9 years;88.18% Whites/Caucasians, 6.82% African-Americans, 3.20% Oriental; 1.8% did not report theirracial background) enrolled in the second semester ofa freshman chemistry course for nonmajors at a

private university in New York State. Fifty-sixpercent of these students graduated in the top 20% oftheir high-school class, 91% took at least one highschool chemistry class, and 26% took and passed theNew York State Regents Chemistry Examination.Complete data were available for only 199 students(114 females and 85 males), because 21 of theoriginal group dropped out of the course by thesemester’s end.

Description of the nonmajors’ chemistry courseThe topics covered in this chemistry course

included: saturated hydrocarbons, unsaturatedhydrocarbons, alcohols, phenols, ethers, aldehydes,ketones, carboxylic acids, amines, polymers, carbo-hydrates, lipids, amino acids, polypeptides, proteins,and nucleic acids and heredity. In addition, thecourse instructor incorporated the topics of geneticengineering, drug abuse, and chemical pollution intohis lectures. One important feature of the course,however, was teaching the above concepts with anemphasis on everyday issues related to students’lives.

The students met three times per week. Two ofthese meetings were reserved for lectures by thecourse instructor. The third meeting, typically heldon Fridays, was conducted by graduate teachingassistants who reviewed the week’s topics andanswered students’ questions. The students werealso involved in biweekly laboratory exercises ontopics related to the lectures. Students’ course gradeswere based on two, hour-long exams, a cumulativefinal exam, and a laboratory grade. Each of the two,hour-long exams and the final exam consisted of 25multiple choice questions and was machine scored.

Instruments

The following instruments were used in thestudy:

1. Demographic Questionnaire. This was usedto collect information about such variables as sex,age, racial background, ranking in graduating highschool class, parents’ educational backgrounds, andnumber and type of chemistry courses taken at thehigh school level.

2. The Approaches to Studying Inventory. Sevenof the 16 subscales (?9 items) from this instrument,which was developed by Entwisde and Ramsden(1983), were used to measure the students’ ap-

Volume 94(6), October 1994


proaches to studying.2 These approaches included:deep approach (DA, active questioning in learning,four items); relating ideas (RI, relating ideas to otherparts of topic under study, four items); intrinsicmotivation (IM, interest in learning for learning’ssake, four items); surface approach (SA, preoccupa-tion with memorization, six items); syllabusboundness (SB, relying on teachers to define learningtasks, three items); extrinsic motivation (EM, interestin courses for the qualifications they offer, fouritems); and achievement motivation (AM, competi-tive and confident, four items).3 Students were askedto respond to the items in the questionnaire using afive-point Likert scale ranging from A (Always True,5 points) to E (Never True, 1 point). All scores onthe subscales were averaged, with a maximum scoreof 5. A meaning orientation (MO) score was com-puted by averaging students’ scores on the deepapproach, relating ideas, and intrinsic motivationsubscales with a maximum score of 5. Also, areproducing orientation (RO) score was computed byaveraging students’ scores on the surface approach,syllabus boundness, and extrinsic motivationsubscales,4 with a maximum score of 5. Thesubscales used in this study have reported internalconsistency reliability coefficients from .49 to .78(Entwistie & Ramsden, 1983). In this study, thesereliabilities ranged from .56 to .75 for all thesub-scales.

Following are examples from the instrument:Always NeverTrue True

I generally try hard to understandthings that at the beginning seemdifficult.

A B C D EAs I am reading new material inchemistry I try to relate it to what Ialready know on the topic.

A B C D EWhile I am studying chemistry, Ioften think of real life situations towhich the material I am learningwould be useful.

A B C D EI have to concentrate on memorizinga lot of what I have to learn.

A B C D E

3. Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT). Developedby Tobin and Capie (1981), this instrument consistsof 10 items (five groups of two items each) selectedto measure several components of formal thought;these include proportional (PROP), combinatorial(COMB), probabilistic (PROB). and correlationalthinking (CORR), as well as controlling variables(CV). The 10 items of the TOLT contain tworesponses each�an answer as well as a reason forhaving selected the answer. Individuals must re-spond correctly to both components for the responseto be considered correct. The TOLT has a reportedinternal consistency reliability coefficient of .84 anda value of .74 for this study.5

Other sources of data for this study were thestudents’ grades on the first hour-long exam and thefinal examination given in the spring semester of1990. The first hour-long exam, used as a pretest(PRE), consisted of 25 multiple choice questions andcovered the prerequisite knowledge required for thecourse, as determined by the course instructors. Thedifficulty indices of the questions on the first hour-long examination ranged from 0.21 to 0.93, with amean difficulty index of 0.66. The discriminationindices of the same items ranged from 0.06 to 0.75,with a mean discrimination index of 0.38. Theinternal consistency reliability coefficient of this testwas 0.71. The course final examination (FINAL)was a cumulative examination that included 25multiple choice questions. Questions on the finalexamination were at different levels on Bloom’staxonomy (see Bloom, 1986). In addition, theexamination contained four problems that requiredmathematical manipulations and computations. Thedifficulty indices of the questions ranged from 0.11to 0.95, with a mean difficulty index of 0.65. Thediscrimination indices of the test questions rangedfrom 0.15 to 0.90, with a mean discrimination indexof 0.41. The final exam had an internal consistencyreliability coefficient of 0.70. A panel consisting oftwo chemistry professors, a chemistry educationteaching assistant, and a science education professordetermined that the final examination was consistentwith the content of the chemistry course fornonmajors. In addition, the science educationprofessor and the chemistry education teachingassistant determined that the final examinationcontained questions at the knowledge, comprehen-

^ee Entwistie and Kozeki (1985) for a similar design used to compare British and Hungarian adolescents.nTie description in parentheses of each subscale was adapted from Entwistie and Ramsden (1983).^ee Entwistie and Ramsden (1983) and Ramsden and Entwistie (1981) for a detailed discussion of the components of MO and RO.sZeitoun (1989) reports a reliability coefficient of .76 for the TOLT in a study with 17- and 18-year-old students.



sion, and application levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Procedures

Students were asked to respond to the Demo-graphic Questionnaire and the seven subscales of theApproaches to Studying Inventory during a lecture inthe first week of the 1990 winter semester. Thesesame students were given the TOLT during the firstand second weeks of the semester in their respectivelaboratory sessions. Additionally, students’ gradeson the first hour-long exam and the second-semesterfinal examination were obtained at the end of thespring semester (May, 1990).

Results

Table 1 presents the means and standard devia-tions of the variables used in this study for the totalsample, as well as for each gender.

Table 1 shows that students in this study have ahigher score on reproducing orientation (RO) than onmeaning orientation (MO) (r for dependentsamples=4.06,p<.0001) while female students have ahigher meaningful orientation score (MO) than malestudents (^=-1.76,p<.07). Moreover, there are nostatistically significant differences between femalesand males on the scores for achievement motivation(AM), the final exam scores (FINAL), and pretestscores (PRE). Finally, scores of male students on theTOLT test are significantly higher than those offemale students 0=2.4,/?<01).

Tables 2. 3, and 4 present Pearson correlationcoefficients for the total sample, for male students,and for female students, respectively.

Table 2 shows significant correlations betweenfinal exam (FINAL) and pretest (PRE), meaningorientation (MO), and TOLT scores. In addition,there are significant correlations between achieve-

ment motivation (AM) and meaning orientation(MO), and achievement motivation (AM) andreproducing orientation (RO). When correlations arecomputed for males and females separately (Tables 3and 4), meaning orientation (MO) is significantlycorrelated with the final exam (FINAL) for males butnot for females and TOLT is significantly correlatedwith the final examination (FINAL) for both sexes.

Since the variables correlated with one another, astepwise multiple regression analysis was applied to thedata using the SAS Statistical Package, version 5, todetermine which variable(s) were the best predictors ofperformance onthe final examination (FINAL). Scoreson the following served as predictors: (a) meaningorientation (MO); (b) reproducing orientation (RO); (c)achievement motivation (AM); (d) pretest (PRE); (e)TOLT; and (f) gender. The results of the multipleregression (Table 5) show that the pretest (PRE),TOLT,and meaning orientation (MO) are significant predic-tors of FINAL, accounting for approximately 32% ofthe variance on the final examination score; meaningorientation (MO) and the TOLT scores contributedsignificant, although small, prediction above the contri-bution of the pretest scores (PRE).

Since the patterns of correlations presented inTables 3 and 4 differed for males and females,separate stepwise multiple regression analyses wereconducted for the two groups. When meaningorientation (MO), reproducing information (RO),pretest (PRE), test of logical thinking (TOLT), andachieving motivation (AM) were used as predictorvariables, PRE, TOLT and MO accounted forapproximately 34% of the variance on the finalexamination for male students; however, theyaccounted for approximately 30% of the variance onthe final examination for the female students, thedifference being mainly due to the contribution of thepretest.

According to Entwistle and Kozeki (1985) "under-

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations/or All Variables Used in the Study for the Total Sample and byGender

Total Sampler199)Mean SD

Females (n= 114)Mean SD

Males (Ai=85)Mean SD

FINALPREMOROAMTOLT* P<07

65.969.683.183.303.546.06**P<01

14.5917.860.470.340.612.62

65.5870.373.223.313.525.70

15.1918.970.430.370.592.67

66.4568.763.113.283.576.55

13.7616.400.50*0.300.642.49**



Table 2. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the DifferentVariables Used in the Study for Total Sample (n=199)

standing depends upon both comprehension and opera-tion learning; the grasping of relationships has to besupported by an appropriate use ofevidence and detail"(p. 136). Thus, it is important that students have abalance between a meaning orientation and reproduc-ing orientation. To evaluate this contention studentswere divided into two groups based on their scores onMO and RO. Thefirst group (Group1,46 students) in-cluded studentswho scored abovethe median scoreon both MO andRO while the sec-ond group (Group2,58 students) in-cluded the stu-dents who scoredless than the me-dian on both mea-sures. When thegroup scores onthe final examwere compared,students of Group1 were found tohave higher finalexam scores(Group 1M=70.1,Group 2 M=63.2t=1.46.p<.07).

FINAL PRE

*P<0005 **P<.03

FINAL PRE

*P<0005 **P<005

Discussion

The results ofthis study confirmthe findings ofLawson (1983)and Zeitoun(1989), who as-serted that priorknowledge wasthe best predictorof achievement,

FINAL PRE

*P<.0005 **P<05

followed by formal reasoning ability, especially whenthe instruments used to measure achievementcontainedmostly multiple choice items, as was the case of thefinal exam used to measure achievement in this study.

The results of this study also confirm the find-ings ofEntwistle and Kozeki (1985), Entwistle andRamsden (1983), and Watkins (1983,1984,1986),

MOFINALPREMOROAMTOLT

1.000.51*0.16**0.050.060.24*

1.000.050.090.040.16

1.000.110.27*-0.07

1.000.23*-0.07

1.000.05 1.00

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the DifferentVariables Used in the Study for Female Students (n=114)

MOFINALPREMOROAMTOLT

1.000.50*0.060.000.060.26**

1.00-0.160.030.020.19***

1.000.030.32*-0.05

1.000.31*-0.07

1.000.03 1.00

Table 4. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the DifferentVariables Used in the Study for Male Students (n=85)

FINALPREMOROAMTOLT

1.000.53*0.28**0.150.070.22**

1.000.26**0.160.070.15

1.000.200.23**-0.05

1.000.13-0.04

1.000.06 1.00

who found a significant relationship between mean-ing orientation (MO) and achievement. Finally, theresults confirm the findings from previous research(Baker. 1987; Walkosz & Yeany. 1984) that, on theaverage, males score higher than females on theTOLT.

The stepwise multiple regression shows that themeaning orienta-tion scores (MO),as measuredbytheApproaches toStudying Inven-tory, allow a sig-nificant, althoughsmall, improve-mentoverpredict-ing of chemistryfinal examinationscores (FINAL)solely by previouschemistry test andTOLT scores.This finding,coupled with simi-lar research find-ings by Watkins(1983, 1984,1986), indicatesthe possible im-portance ofthe ap-proaches studentsuse in studying totheir success inchemistry.

RO AM TOLT

RO AM TOLT

However, themultiple regres-sion may be over-simplifying the re-lationship be-tween the ap-proaches to study-ing and achieve-ment, especiallythat the results ofthis study support

RO AM TOLT

the contention by Entwistle and Kozeki (1985) thatstudents may need a balance between a meaning orien-tation and reproducing orientation to succeed in theirstudies.

Understanding a topic in chemistry may requirethe ability to meaningfully relate different conceptsin chemistry but, in some situations, may require

***P<05

MO



Table 5. Stepwise Multiple Regression Summary/orthe Prediction of Performance on the Final Examina-tion (FINAL) for the Total Sample (n=199)

Step

123

VariableenteredPRETOLTMO

R2

0.260.300.32

F

61.149.035.11

Prob>F

.0001

.0030

.0250

attention to detail and the memorization of a numberof relevant facts. Thus students with only a meaningorientation may not be able to do well on typicalchemistry tests, while students who strike a balancebetween a meaning orientation and reproducingorientation may be the best achievers. The lack ofemphasis on either one of these approaches may beproblematic. Total emphasis on meaningful learningand a lack of emphasis on rote learning may result inan inadequate knowledge base necessary for successin science courses. Thus it can be argued thatstudents in this study who had a balance betweentheir meaning and reproducing orientations were ableto create meaningful links between the facts in theirknowledge base, which reflected in higher scores onthe final chemistry examination (M=70.1). Con-versely, those students who had low scores on bothapproaches scored low on the final exam (M=63.2).Moreover, students who had a high meaning orienta-tion score and a low reproducing orientation scoreachieved slightly better than those with a highreproducing orientation and a low meaning orienta-tion score (means of 64 and 66, respectively).

The significant differences between male andfemale TOLT scores and the lack of significantrelationships between female students’ meaningorientation scores and their performance in chemistryis an area that needs further research. The results ofthis study do not explain these findings. Conse-quently, there is a need to further investigate theserelationships, possibly through the use of qualitativeresearch methods, to uncover the possible reasonsbehind these results.

Implications for Teaching

There are at least three implications that can bedrawn from this study. First, the findings underscorethe importance of both prior knowledge and logicalthinking abilities as predictors of success in chemis-try with possible implications for emphasizing bothin instruction. Second, approaches to studying may

be important factors to consider in addition to priorknowledge and logical thinking ability. For example,this study showed that a meaning orientation with adeep approach to studying is a significant predictorof success in chemistry, which suggests that studentsshould be encouraged to actively question what theyare learning and to relate ideas to other parts of thetopic under study. However, the results point to theimportance of a balanced approach to studying.While a meaning orientation to studying is necessary,it may not be sufficient for success in chemistry.Thus, students need both to acquire facts, conceptsand generalizations of a discipline and create mean-ingful relationships between them. Also, teachersneed to demonstrate a balance between the twoapproaches in their teaching in the hope that studentswill acquire the skills necessary for success. Third,the Approaches to Studying Inventory may provideteachers with information about students’ unbalancedstudy orientations; that is, it may identify studentswho favor a meaningful approach over a reproducingapproach or vice versa, with implications for correc-tive work with these students.

References

Baker, D. (1987). The influence of role-specific selfconcept and sex-role identity on career choices inscience. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 24, 739-756.

Bloom, B. (1986) (Ed.). Taxonomy of educationalobjectives. New York: Longman Inc.

Chandran, S., Treagust, D., & Tobin, K. (1987).The role of cognitive factors in chemistryachievement. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 24,145-160.

Clarice, R.(1986). Students’ approaches to learningin an innovative medical school: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 56, 309-321.

Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 77,671-684.

Craik, F. & Watkins, M. (1973). The role of re-hearsal in short term memory. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 599-607.

Entwistle, N., & Kozeki, B. (1985). Relationshipsbetween school motivation, approaches to study-ing, and attainment, among British and Hungar-ian adolescents. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 55, 124-137.



Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understandingstudent learning. Worcester, Great Britain:Billing & Sons Ltd.

Falls, T.. & Voss, B. (1985). The ability of highschool chemistry students to solve computationalproblems requiring proportional reasoning asaffected by item in-task variables. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching,French Lick Springs, IN, April 15-18. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 257654).

Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches tostudy of distance education students. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 77,212-222.

Harper, G.. & Kember, D. (1989). Interpretation offactor analyses from the approachers to studyinginventory. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 59, 66-74.

Kember, D.. & Harper, G. (1987). Implications forinstruction arising from the relationship betweenapproaches to studying and academic outcomes.Instructional Science, 16, 35-46.

Lawson, A. (1983). Predicting science achievement:The role of developmental level, disembeddingability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, andbelief. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20.117-129.

Mitchell, A., & Lawson, A. (1987). Predictinggenetics achievement in nonmajors collegebiology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 23-37.

Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. (1981). Effects ofacademic departments on students’ approaches tostudying. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 51,36S-3S3.

Speth. C. & Brown, R. (1988). Study approaches,processes, and strategies: are three perspectivesbetter than one? British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 58,247-257.

Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1981). Development andvalidation of a group test of logical thinking.Educational and Psychological Measurement,47.413-424.

Walkosz. M.. & Yeany. R. (1984). Effects of labinstruction emphasizing process skills onachievement of college students having differentcognitive development levels, (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 244805)

Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary study pro-cesses. Human Learning, 26,76-85.

Watkins, D. (1984). Learning strategies as thresholdvariables in the prediction of tertiary grades.Educational and Psychological Measurement,44,523-525.

Watkins, D. (1986). Learning processes and background characteristics as predictors of tertiarygrades. Educational and Psychological Mea-surement, 46,199-203.

Zeitoun, H. (1989). The relationship betweenabstract concept achievement and prior knowl-edge, formal reasoning ability, and gender.International Journal of Science Education, 11,227-234.

Note: Saouma B. BouJaoude’s address is the Depart-ment of Education, American University of Beirut, 850Third Ave., 18th floor, New York, NY 10022. FrankGiuliano’s address is the Department of Science Teaching,101 Heroy Geology Building, Syracuse University,Syracuse, NY 13244-1070.

Errata

In the May. 1994 issue of School Science and Mathematics, there was an error on page 230for the article, "Accurate and Inaccurate Conceptions About Osmosis That Accompanied MeaningfulProblem Solving," written by June Trop Zuckerman. The caption, "Figure 3. EB’s graph," wasinadvertently assigned to what should have been Figure 4, and the caption, "Figure 4. RG’s graph,"was inadvertently assigned to what should have been Figure 3.


relationships between achievement and selective variables in a chemistry course for nonmajors

Documents