Strukturelle Ursachen für Prüfungsmisserfolg im Fach Chemie an der Universität

Structural causes of examination failure in chemistry at university

Go to ProViel project page

Theoretical background
Examinations in general chemistry at university frequently see high rates of failure. Often, more than 30 % of students fail the exam (Averbeck, 2021; Freeman et al., 2011). The problem with this is not only students’ frustration, but also the fact that exam failure represents a key factor in students dropping out (Heublein et al., 2010). There are two key areas behind examination failure: Firstly, individual factors, such as low motivation or a lack of prior knowledge, have a demonstrable influence on exam performance (Averbeck, 2021). Secondly, there is some initial evidence of structural causes. It appears, for example, that there is a discrepancy between the content taught and the content students learn (Eilks et al., 2010). Schindler (2015) was also able to demonstrate in his study that teachers often do not base their choice of examination tasks on the predefined learning objectives. The first structural deficits have already been identified in general chemistry, too. In laboratory practice, for example, there are clear discrepancies between the learning objectives perceived by students and the learning objectives intended by lecturers (Elert, 2019).

All these indications suggest there is a lack of correlation between learning objectives, teaching, and examinations. The constructive alignment model, however, identifies this fit as key to a competence-oriented module (Biggs, 2003; Wildt & Wildt, 2011). If the teaching relates to previously defined, examinable learning objectives and the examination tests these in the end, then the competences that were actually taught and acquired are recorded (Schaper et al., 2013; Walzik, 2012).  

 

Aim of the study
What has already been observed in the practical part of general chemistry gives reason to assume that even beyond the practical course, too, there is a lack of correlation in terms of constructive alignment within the modules for general chemistry. This study is intended to examine precisely this alignment and to uncover problems relevant to the examination.
 

Research questions
RQ1:  How do the learning objectives perceived by the students match up with the learning objectives considered important by the teachers?

RQ2: To what extent do examinations reflect the competences intended by the teachers and/or received by the students?

RQ3: Where there is a lack of coordination between the learning objectives perceived by students and those considered important by teachers, what influence does this have on exam success?
 

Methodology and design of the study
To answer the first research question, learning objectives were formulated for modules of general chemistry in different cognitive dimensions based on the learning objective taxonomy of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). The content was based on module handbooks, textbooks in general chemistry, and lecture notes. By means of questionnaires, the lecturers (N ≈ 3) were interviewed at the beginning of each semester in three modules of different degree programmes in general chemistry. The students (N ≈ 350) received the questionnaires in one of the final lecture sessions. Here, the learning objectives are to be rated for their importance based on a Likert scale.

To answer the second research question, the first step is to take a closer look at the written examination. For this purpose, learning objectives are assigned to the examination tasks. The learning objectives found in the examination are compared with the intended learning objectives of lecturers and the perceived learning objectives of students. An external subject knowledge test (Averbeck, 2021; Freyer, 2013) also aims to provide information on whether the examination is competence-oriented.

To answer the third research question, the agreement in the assessed learning objectives is correlated with the exam points in the form of Cohen’s Kappa values. In a regression model, the structural factors found are then distinguished from individual factors. These were previously recorded as control variables.
 

Bibliography
Averbeck, D. (2021). Zum Studienerfolg in der Studieneingangsphase des Chemiestudiums: Der Einfluss Kognitiver und Affektiv-Motivationaler Variablen. Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen: vol. 308. Logos.

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives.

Eilks, I., Bäumer, M. & Byers, B. (2010). Methodische Innovationen für die Chemielehre. CHEMKON, 17(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/ckon.201010139

Elert, T. (2019). Course Success in the Undergraduate General Chemistry Lab. Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen: vol. 284. Logos.

Freeman, S., Haak, D. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE life sciences education, 10(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105

Freyer, K. (2013). Zum Einfluss von Studieneingangsvoraussetzungen auf den Studienerfolg Erstsemesterstudierender im Fach Chemie. Accessed: University of Duisburg-Essen, Diss. Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen: vol. 156. Logos Berlin.

Heublein, U., Hutzsch, C., Schreiber, J., Sommer, D. & Besuch, G. (2010). Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkönnlichen Studiengängen. http://www.dgb-jugend.de/neue_downloads/data/abbrecherstudie_2010.pdf

Schaper, N., Hilkenheimer, F. & Bender, E. (2013). Fachgutachten – Umsetzungshilfen für kompetenzorientiertes Prüfen.
Schindler, C. (2015). Herausforderung Prüfen: Eine fallbasierte Untersuchung der Prüfungspraxis von Hochschullehrenden im Rahmen eines Qualitätsentwicklungsprogramms.

Walzik, S. (2012). Kompetenzorientiert prüfen: Leistungsbewertung an der Hochschule in Theorie und Praxis. UTB Schlüsselkompetenzen: vol. 3. Budrich.

Wildt, J. & Wildt, B. (2011). Lernprozessorientiertes Prüfen im “Constructive Alignment”: Ein Beitrag zur Förderung der Qualität von Hochschulbildung durch eine Weiterentwicklung des Prüfungssystems. In B. Berendt, A. Fleischmann, N. Schaper, B. Szczyrba & J. Wildt (eds.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (H 6.1). DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH. (First published 2011)