Research: Science and Education

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 125

Determining the preparedness of first-year college chem-istry students has been on the minds of university educatorsfor more than 75 years (1). Through the years, a large num-ber of studies have examined correlations between the gradeearned in a first-college level chemistry course and chemis-try placement examination performance (1–17), mathemat-ics SAT or ACT scores (5, 7, 8, 17–24), high schoolperformance (6, 7, 17–19, 21), general intelligence and learn-ing ability (6, 9, 17, 25–30), and other criteria such as read-ing and English skills (19, 23, 31), or full-time versuspart-time student status (23). Most studies based on a singlevariant predictor (7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 30) confirm what wasalready deduced in 1929 (2), “It seems possible to predictthe performance of the best and the poorest of students.”

Performance predictors based on multivariant analysis(5, 7, 23) can be more successful particularly when the pre-diction is focused on distinguishing passing (grade of A, B,or C) or failing (grade of D, F, or W) rather than on predict-ing the actual final grade (5, 12, 16, 17, 23). Even withinthis limited focus, it is estimated that only about 70–80% ofstudents can be correctly placed (3, 12, 16, 17, 29) with thedifficulty of quantifying the intangible of motivation (4, 20,21) limiting predictive accuracy. Although the 1958 admo-nition (18) that “None of the predictive factors consideredshould be used by instructors and counselors without con-siderable qualification” clearly still applies, the value of iden-tifying students at risk for failing a first chemistry coursecannot be denied. The importance of this endeavor is un-derscored by the large number of academic majors (31 ma-jors in 17 departments housed in 5 colleges or schools at TexasTech) or degree programs (e.g., pre-dentistry, pre-medicine,pre-optometry, and pre-pharmacy programs coupled with anymajor) that require at least one semester of a fundamentalchemistry course.

The Role of Remedial Coursesin Addressing Unpreparedness

While considerable effort (1–31) has been expended de-veloping and validating chemistry performance predictive cri-teria, much less attention has been devoted to determiningthe efficacy of remedial chemistry courses (13–15, 20, 32–34). This needs to be done if identifying at-risk chemistry stu-dents is to have practical meaning.

Whether successfully completing a remedial course im-proves performance in subsequent chemistry courses can be

judged by two very different methods:1. Comparison to students deemed not to need remediation

2. Comparison to other students deemed to need remediationwho, nevertheless, did not enroll in the remedial course

Most previous studies (14, 15, 25, 31–33) have focusedonly on method 1, with comparable performance being re-ported for both groups. Although this is encouraging, ab-sent consideration of method 2, it cannot be known whetherthe remedial course experience improved subsequent perfor-mance or merely delayed the education of a misplaced stu-dent. We are aware of only one previous study (20) thataddressed the important question implicit in method 2 witha reported mean grade improvement of 0.29 (on a standard4.0 scale) for the students undergoing remediation. Unfor-tunately, that study involved few students (~100) selected forremediation on the basis of SAT mathematics scores, a policythat has been questioned (5, 7, 17). Furthermore, becausestudents in that program enrolled simultaneously in the re-medial and the “subsequent” chemistry course, it is not clearhow those results apply to the much more usual implemen-tation of placement and remediation where the courses aretaken consecutively.

The Chemistry and Biochemistry Department at TexasTech University (TTU) began in the fall 1999 semester ad-ministering an in-house written chemistry placement exami-nation (CPE) to determine whether students were preparedfor Chem 1307 or whether a remedial course, Chem 1301,was required. Two fairly unique features of this placement–remediation program make the TTU experience particularlywell suited to address method 2. First, no exceptions to theplacement test recommendation were allowed. This circum-stance ensured that all of the post-CPE Chem 1307 studentswere deemed capable of successfully completing the courseeither by virtue of their CPE or Chem 1301 grade. Second,pre-CPE, Chem 1301 was in the curriculum to serve the needsof students who had not taken high school chemistry (i.e.,the unprepared students), and post-CPE, the role of Chem1301 was expanded to serve underprepared students as well.This circumstance ensured that all pre-CPE Chem 1301 stu-dents would have been deemed in need of remediation had aCPE been administered. As we will develop, these conditionsallow a substantial consideration of method 2 using resultsfrom almost 6000 students (the combined unique student en-rollment of Chem 1301 and 1307) over the six-year periodof fall 1996 through summer 2002.

edited byDiane M. Bunce

The Catholic University of AmericaWashington, D.C. 20064

Christopher F. BauerUniversity of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824

Chemical Education Research

A Six-Year Study of the Effectsof a Remedial Course in the Chemistry CurriculumAndrea B. BentleyDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79049-1071

Gregory I. Gellene*Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1061; *greg.gellene@ttu.edu

Research: Science and Education

126 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Chemistry Course Information

The Texas Tech University catalog describes Chem 1301,Introductory Chemistry, this way:

Basic vocabulary, concepts, and problem solving skills requiredfor Chem 1307 and 1308. This course has no laboratory andwill not satisfy a laboratory science requirement.

The course text for the full six years of the study was Zum-dahl’s Basic Chemistry (35). During this time, 24 sections ofChem 1301 were offered; 14 taught by 5 different perma-nent faculty and 10 taught by 4 different temporary faculty.The catalog describes Chem 1307, Principles of ChemistryI, this way.

Prerequisite: Chem 1301 or a passing grade on the ChemistryPlacement Exam. A study of the fundamental concepts of chem-istry including nomenclature, states of matter, the periodic tableand periodic trends, chemical reactions, atomic structure, chemi-cal bonding, molecular structure, and the properties of gasses, liq-uids, solutions, and solids. This course is recommended for studentswho plan careers in the physical and biological sciences as well asmedicine and engineering.

Three textbooks were used, each for two years, during thecourse of this study: Silberberg’s Chemistry: The Molecular Na-ture of Matter and Change (36); McMurray and Fay’s Chem-istry, 2nd ed. (37); and Silberberg’s The Molecular Nature ofMatter and Change, 2nd ed. (38). During this time, 46 sec-tions of Chem 1307 were offered; 23 taught by 12 differentpermanent faculty and 23 taught by 7 different temporaryfaculty.

Generally, common final exams were administeredamong the various sections of Chem 1307, although the threemid-semester examinations were not coordinated. Thus, com-parisons will be made on the basis of final course percentagescores rather than letter grades. This strategy avoids prob-lems associated with letter grades being assigned on the basisof a curve with a preset median (20). Although instructorvariation is always a worry in comparisons of student perfor-mance, the large number of instructors involved in Chem1301 and Chem 1307 over the course of this study mitigatesthis concern. Furthermore, the mean of the average scoreamong the 46 sections of Chem 1307 involved in this studywas 67.8 ± 6.3, where the error range represents one stan-dard deviation of the distribution. This range of average scoresis comparable to the range observed for multiple sectionstaught by the same instructor in the same semester (3.2–5.6),suggesting that instructor variation will not be a dominatingfactor controlling the results. However, instructor variationeffects cannot be dismissed entirely.

The Chemistry Placement Test

The CPE is an objective test consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions covering the areas of basic mathematics skills,general science knowledge, and specific chemistry knowledge,taken from pre-CPE Chem 1301 final examinations with therationale that demonstrating Chem 1301 content proficiencyobviated the need for remedial work. A sample test repre-senting the level, but not the distribution, of the questionsfrom the three content areas can be found at http://www.depts.ttu.edu/chemistry/placement/sample.html. On the actual CPE,

ten questions address basic mathematics skills and generalscience knowledge, and ten questions address specific chem-istry knowledge. Students are permitted to use calculators anda periodic chart of the elements provided to them. The passingscore is 50% correct, comparable to CPE passing scores atother universities (3, 4, 16); this means students may pass evenif they answered all of the chemistry questions incorrectly.

The CPE passing percentage and Chem 1307 final scoresfor students passing the CPE are presented as a function ofSAT mathematics score in Figure 1. As observed in previousstudies (5, 7), a strong positive correlation between passingthe CPE and SAT mathematics score is apparent and expectedconsidering the mathematics content of the CPE. This ex-pectation is further supported by the average passing scoreincreasing from 56.8% ± 8.4% to 70.7% ± 14.3%, wherethe error represents one standard deviation of the mean, asthe SAT mathematics score range increases from 400–450to 760–800. Unfortunately, a more detailed analysis of thispoint cannot be made because specific information on thecontent of the correctly answered questions is not available.

Alternatively, the correlation of SAT mathematics scoreswith Chem 1307 grades is substantially weaker. The resultsare presented as a function of SAT mathematics score to com-pare students of comparable mathematical ability for two rea-sons. Firstly, SAT mathematics scores have been shown to bean indicator of future performance among students whoearned high grades in an introductory chemistry course, (al-though this correlation does not hold true for students withpoor grades, and hence its limited effectiveness as a predic-tor). Secondly, SAT mathematics scores at Texas Tech Uni-versity have slowly increased over the course of this study.Thus, comparing students of similar mathematical ability canhelp emphasize consequences more directly attributable tothe chemistry curriculum. Figure 1 also shows the SAT math-ematics score distribution of the nearly 6000 unique Chem1301 and 1307 students included in this study.

Results

For the purpose of this study, three groups of Chem 1307students can be identified. First, there are students who passthe CPE and are thus judged sufficiently prepared for Chem1307. Second, there are students who do not pass the CPE,are recommended to take, and then successfully complete,Chem 1301. The Chem 1307 performance of these twogroups of students can be determined straightforwardly fromCPE, course registration, and Chem 1307 records gatheredin the post-CPE period of this study. The third group of stu-dents comes from the pre-CPE period of the study and con-sists of those students who would not have passed the CPEhad they taken it, but nevertheless enrolled in Chem 1307without the benefit of the remedial course.

Determining the Chem 1307 performance of this thirdgroup is crucial to implementing method 2 described earlierand can be accomplished by considering pre-CPE informa-tion according to the simple relationship:

SN S N S

NP P F F

T

=+

(1)

where S represents the average Chem 1307 score, N repre-

Research: Science and Education

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 127

sents the number of students, and the subscripts P, F, and Trepresent “would have passed the CPE”, “would have failedthe CPE”, and the total number of Chem 1307 students with-out Chem 1301 who completed the course, respectively. Thequantities S and NT are determined directly from pre-CPEregistration and Chem 1307 course records. NP is estimatedfrom the relationship:

N N f fP E P C= (2)

where NE is the total number of students entering the chem-istry program (i.e., Chem 1307 and Chem 1301), fP is thefraction of students who would have passed the CPE, and fCis the fraction of students who complete Chem 1307 havingpassed the CPE. NE is determined directly from registrationinformation and includes students who enrolled directly intoChem 1307 and students who enrolled in Chem 1301 be-cause this is the population that is subjected to the CPE inthe post-CPE period.

The quantity fP is determined from post-CPE data pre-sented in Figure 1, and its use for the estimation of NP relieson two assumptions. The first assumption is that the generallevel of chemistry preparedness among pre-CPE Texas highschool graduates was similar to that determined for post-CPEstudents. This assumption is supported by the relative con-stancy of the passing rate over the three post-CPE years stud-ied as shown by the small error bars in the center panel ofFigure 1.

The second assumption underlying the value for fP isthat all pre-CPE chemistry students who would have passedthe CPE enrolled in Chem 1307, or equivalently, that nopre-CPE chemistry students who would have passed the CPEenrolled in Chem 1301. This assumption is supported by twoconsiderations. The first consideration is that in the pre-CPEperiod Chem 1301 was recommended only to students whohad not taken chemistry in high school. Such students wouldnot be expected to pass the CPE. The second considerationis that the average CPE passing percentage (25%) suggeststhat it is unlikely that some of this small group of preparedstudents would elect, without being so-advised, to enroll ina preparatory course. Accepting the validity of using fP, theproduct, NE fP, is a reliable estimate of properly placed (i.e.,prepared) students enrolling in Chem 1307 during the pre-CPE period. However, post-CPE records indicate that onlyabout 90% of students passing the CPE and enrolling inChem 1307 complete the course—about 10% withdraw. Be-cause only students who complete Chem 1307 contribute toS in eq 1, NE fP must be multiplied by fC to estimate NP. WithNP established, NF can be determined from the following re-lationship:

N N NF T P= − (3)

It remains to establish a value for SP, the score for pre-CPE Chem 1307 students who would have passed the CPE.In this study, the corresponding post-CPE results (i.e., post-CPE Chem 1307 scores of students who passed the CPE)are used to estimate SP. This approach assumes that the ma-terial covered and the rigor with which it was presented andexamined remained constant throughout the six years of thestudy. A review of course syllabi and the use of similar texts—Pre-CPE: Silberberg, 1st ed. (36) and McMurry and Fay, 2nd

ed. (37); post-CPE: McMurry and Fay, 2nd ed. (37) andSilberberg, 2nd ed. (38)—support the first assumption. Thevalidity of the second assumption is difficult to assess absentthe use of standardized exit examinations, but it is supportedby the continued practice of the TTU chemistry departmentto make previous tests and final examinations available asstudy guides for currently enrolled students.

Figure 1. Distribution of SAT mathematics scores for the almost 6000unique CHEM 1301 and CHEM 1307 students included in the six-year study (top panel). Passing percentage of the Texas Tech Uni-versity chemistry placement examination (CPE) as a function of SATmathematics scores (center panel). CHEM 1307 score as a func-tion of SAT mathematics scores for those students passing the CPE(bottom panel). Error bars represent one standard deviation fromthe respective means.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Math SAT Score

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

<400 400–450

460–500

510–550

560–600

610–650

660–700

710–750

760–800

<400 400–450

460–500

510–550

560–600

610–650

660–700

710–750

760–800

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math SAT Score

Per

cent

Pas

sing

0

20

40

60

80

100

Math SAT Score

1307

Sco

re (

%)

<400 400–450

460–500

510–550

560–600

610–650

660–700

710–750

760–800

Research: Science and Education

128 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Taken together, equations 1–3 and the use of pre-CPE(S, NT, NE) and post-CPE (fP, fC, SP) information allow SF,the average score of the third group of Chem 1307 students(i.e., those who would have failed the CPE but did not takeChem 1301) to be determined. The average scores of the threegroups of Chem 1307 students are compared as a functionof SAT mathematics score in Figure 2. The indicated errorbars represent one standard deviation of the individual meansas calculated directly for the first two groups of students andby a standard propagation of error analysis through equations1–3 for the third group. Although a trend of increasing av-erage score with increasing SAT mathematics score is appar-ent for all three groups, all of the averages are within are theerror bars, suggesting little statistical significance for the trend.However, an F-test analysis of the variances indicates statis-tically significant differences at the 90% confidence level forsome mid-range SAT mathematics score brackets; these areshown in Figure 2.

Not unexpectedly, post-CPE prepared (p) students per-formed better in Chem 1307 than did students designatedas pre-CPE unremediated–underprepared (uu), but only byone-half to three-quarters of a typical letter grade and onlyfor SAT mathematics scores in the range of 510–700. Simi-larly, the post-CPE remediated–underprepared (ru) studentsalso outperformed the pre-CPE uu students, but by only one-quarter to one-half of a typical letter grade and for the nar-rower range of SAT mathematics scores: 460–600. Finally,in the post-CPE era, the ru students under-performed the pstudents by about one-quarter to one-half of a typical lettergrade over the range of SAT mathematics scores of 560–700.Outside of the SAT mathematics score ranges just noted, thevarious mean score differences were found to be not statisti-cally significant at the 90% confidence level and all of thedifferences that were significant at that level failed to be sig-nificant at the 95% confidence level.

Discussion

If only the first two groups of Chem 1307 students hadbeen considered as was done previously (14, 15, 25, 32–34),it would have appeared that the CPE remedial program wassuccessful because the performance of the unprepared andunderprepared students after remediation was comparable orwithin about one-half of a typical letter grade to that of theprepared students. However, when the study is extended toinclude the third group, a compelling argument for the ben-eficial effects of the remedial course can no longer be made.Indeed, the data support the conclusion that the CPE reme-dial program has little or no effect on Chem 1307 perfor-mance for students with SAT mathematics scores less thanor equal to 450 or greater than 600, and only about one-halfa letter grade or less improvement for students with SATmathematics scores between 460 and 600 (the circles in thelower panel of Figure 2).

The underlying cause for this unexpected result is notimmediately clear. One possibility is that students who with-drew from Chem 1307 in the pre-CPE period are representedin the post-CPE period by students who do not continuewith Chem 1307 after enrolling in Chem 1301. These stu-dents would not affect the average Chem 1307 scores in eitherperiod of the study and enrollment data indicates that theirnumbers are sufficient to support this possibility. Additionalissues regarding Chem 1301 students who do not continuewith Chem 1307 will be discussed below.

A second, possibly overlapping possibility, is that theTexas Tech University CPE and the inflexible way in whichthe results are used, places many students in Chem 1301 whogain very little new chemical knowledge or skills uponcompletion of the remedial course (i.e., a significant num-ber of students are misplaced into Chem 1301). Thus, whenthese students enroll in Chem 1307, their performance iscomparable to the prepared Chem 1307 students. Unfortu-nately, because the Texas Tech University CPE has not beenrigorously evaluated, it is difficult to critique the placementaccuracy of the examination, except to comment that therange (but not the extent) of questions is similar to thosefound on popular, commercially available placement tests(e.g., the Toledo CPE [3, 4, 8, 13] or California ChemistryDiagnostic Test [10, 11] ) that have been extensively evalu-

Figure 2. Comparison of Chem 1307 scores for unremediated–underprepared (uu [pre-CPE]), remediated–underprepared (ru [post-CPE]), and prepared (p [post-CPE]) students (top panel). Error barsrepresent one standard deviation from the respective means. MeanChem 1307 score differences from the top panel that are statisti-cally significant at the 90% confidence level as a function of SATmathematics scores (bottom panel). No Chem 1307 score differ-ence within an SAT mathematics score bracket is statistically sig-nificant at the 95% confidence level.

Sco

re (

%)

Math SAT Score

100

80

60

40

20

0<400 400–450 460–500 510–550 560–600 610–650 660–700 710–750 760–800

p (post-CPE)ru (post-CPE)uu (pre-CPE)

Math SAT Score

Mea

n S

core

(%

)D

iffer

ence

0

5

10

p - ruru - uup - uu

<400 400–450

460–500

510–550

560–600

610–650

660–700

710–750

760–800

Research: Science and Education

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 129

ated and for which reported placement accuracy has neverexceeded 80%. Thus, at the expense of a more elaborate ad-vising system, it is likely that the process could be improvedwith increased advising flexibility as several studies haveshown (5, 7, 23).

Looking beyond average scores to an examination of suc-cess in Chem 1307 reveals another unexpected effect of theCPE remedial program. If success is defined as a grade of A,B, or C in Chem 1307, then three distinct modes of failingto meet this goal can be identified. A student can fail theCPE, enroll in Chem 1301 but never enroll in Chem 1307(denoted 1301 stop). Alternatively, a student can fail the CPE,successfully complete Chem 1301, enroll in Chem 1307 andreceive a grade of D, F, or W (denoted DFW 1307 (1301)).Finally, a student can pass the CPE, enroll directly in Chem1307 and receive a grade of D, F, or W (denoted DFW 1307).Incoming students failing by each of these three modes as apercentage of the combined Chem 1301 and 1307 uniquestudent enrollment is compared in Figure 3 as a function ofacademic semester for the six years of this study. This com-parison strikingly demonstrates that a dramatic decrease inDFW 1307 following the introduction of the CPE in thefall 1999 semester, is more than compensated for by an in-crease in 1301 stop. In fact, this effect is so pronounced thatthe introduction of the CPE has led to a smaller fraction ofincoming students successfully completing Chem 1307; theexact opposite of the intended effect.

The most worrisome feature of this attrition from theChem 1301, Chem 1307 program is the large number ofsuccessful students that do not continue. Pre-CPE, about32% of fall semester students receiving a grade of A, B, or Cin Chem 1301 did not enroll in Chem 1307 in the follow-ing spring. Post-CPE, this number increased to 44%. Whiledisturbing, this attrition is not unprecedented, with other in-stitutions (13, 33, 34) reporting that 20–50% of the quali-fied students that satisfactorily complete a remedial coursedo not continue. However, these numbers take on greatersignificance when as many as 75% of incoming students aredirected to enroll in a remedial chemistry course (see Figure1). Although the cause of this attrition is not generally un-derstood at present, in institutions where the remedial courseserves only a preparatory function and satisfies no other aca-demic degree or program requirement (i.e., the case at TTU),it seems clear that the choice not to continue past the reme-dial chemistry course is a choice to abandon, at least tempo-rarily, whatever one of the large number of academic majorsor programs that require chemistry proficiency. Consideringthat almost all of the science, engineering, and pre-medicalfield or health care academic majors and programs require aChem 1307-like course, reversing this attrition represents animportant challenge to university-level chemistry educators.The first step in this direction would be to learn the causefor the attrition; to this end a survey of the successful Chem1301 students who did not continue with Chem 1307 overthe last three years is currently underway.

Figure 3 also reveals that students beginning their chem-istry studies in the fall semester have a significantly greaterlikelihood for a successful Chem 1301, Chem 1307 experi-ence than do those students beginning in the spring semes-ter. Indeed, in some spring semesters as many as 80% of theChem 1301 students ultimately fail to successfully complete

Chem 1307 (i.e., the sum of 1301 stop plus DFW 1307(1301)). The underlying cause of this worrisome trend is simi-larly unknown, but it cannot be attributed to instructor varia-tion alone because the effect persists for classes with commonfall and spring instructors. It is possible that insight into thistrend will be gained when the post-Chem 1301 survey is ana-lyzed as a function of incoming semester.

Conclusions

A six-year study of the benefit of a remedial chemistrycourse at Texas Tech University has found that performanceof unremediated–underprepared, remediated–underprepared,and prepared students in the first fundamental chemistrycourse is indistinguishable at the 95% confidence level andonly partially distinguishable at the 90% confidence level withthe statistically significant differences not exceeding about one-half of a typical letter grade. This indicates that the placementremediation program as implemented at TTU is providinglittle or no significant academic benefit. This conclusion be-came particularly apparent after comparing students in thethree groups having comparable mathematics skills, suggest-ing that mathematics skill-adjusted comparisons can isolatechemistry instruction effects even though it is well establishedthat mathematics skills alone are not a reliable predictor ofchemistry course performance. Because about 44% of thequalified remediated students do not continue in the program,the net result of placement and remediation is fewer studentssuccessfully completing a first fundamental chemistry course.These drawbacks of the program would not have been evi-dent if the performance of unremediated–underprepared stu-dents had not been considered: thus, inclusion of performancedata for such students in future evaluations of chemistry re-mediation programs is strongly encouraged.

Figure 3. Percentage of the combined Chem 1301 and 1307unique student enrollment failing to receive a passing grade (A, B,or C) in Chem 1307 as a function of entering semester. Studentswho enrolled in Chem 1301 and did not continue are denoted1301 stop. Students who successfully completed Chem 1301, en-rolled in Chem 1307, but did not pass that course, are denotedDFW 1307 (1301). Students who passed the chemistry placementexamination, enrolled directly in Chem 1307, but did not pass thatcourse, are denoted DFW 1307.

Academic Session

Per

cent

F'96 S '97 F '97 S '98 F '98 S '99 F '99 S '00 F '00 S '01 F '01

100

80

60

40

20

0

1301 stopDFW 1307(1301)DFW 1307

Research: Science and Education

130 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 82 No. 1 January 2005 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

An obvious question concerns the extent to which theresults of the TTU’s CPE remedial course experience havemore general implications for introductory chemistry instruc-tion at other academic institutions. Although uncovering thefull general implications of this study must await further re-search, possibly involving similar studies at other universi-ties and colleges, some comments can be made now. Thepre-CPE and the post-CPE periods at Texas Tech representtwo extremes of CPE remedial course implementation. In theformer period, students were provided with no special guid-ance, and all students completing a high school chemistrycourse could enroll, without restriction, in a first fundamen-tal university-level chemistry course. In the latter period,course registration was highly regulated and rigorously con-trolled by the CPE results. Interestingly, both implementa-tions produced comparable results, not only in courseperformance, but also, and perhaps more significantly, in thepercentage of incoming students who successfully completeda first fundamental university level chemistry course. In be-tween these extremes, there is a continuum of possibilitiesinvolving CPE variations and flexible use of the CPE in theadvising process. Whether these variations would lead to re-sults similar to the extremes, or a performance maximum ex-ists for some intermediate implementation is not known.However, the present work can be thought of as defining abaseline and suggesting a methodology for future researchon this question.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the financial support of the Camilleand Henry Dreyfus Foundation through the Special GrantsProgram in the Chemical Sciences. A. B. B. thanks the TexasExcellence Fund for a summer fellowship. We are also gratefulto D. J. Casadonte, Jr. for a critical reading of this manu-script. The cooperation and support of the Institutional Re-search and Information Management office of Texas TechUniversity is also acknowledged.

Literature Cited

1. Scofield, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1927, 4, 1168–1175.2. Smith, O. M.; Trimble, H. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 93–

97.3. Hovey, N. W.; Krohn, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1958, 35, 507–509.4. Hovey, N. W.; Krohn, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1963, 40, 370–372.5. Coley, N. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1973, 50, 613–615.6. Albanese, M.; Brooks, D. W.; Day, V. W.; Koehler, R. A.;

Lewis, J. D.; Marianelli, R. S.; Rack, E. P.; Tomlinson-Keasey,C. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53, 571–572.

7. Ozsogomonyan, A.; Loftus, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 58, 173–175.

8. Craney, C. L.; Armstrong, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62,127–129.

9. BouJaoude, S. B.; Giuliano, F. J. Presented at the annual meet-ing of the National Association for Research in Science Teach-ing, Fontana, WI, April 7–10, 1991; ERIC DocumentReproduction Services ED 332877.

10. Russell, A. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 314–317.11. Karpp, E. R. ERIC Document Reproduction Services

ED384402; Glendale Community College, CA, August 1995.12. Gaither, L. ERIC Document Reproduction Services

ED025256; Fresno City College, CA, June, 1968.13. Hunter, N. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53, 301.14. Walmsley, F. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 314–315.15. Freeman, W. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 617–619.16. McFate, C.; Olmsted III, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 562–

565.17. Wagner, E. P.; Sasser, H.; DiBiase, W. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2002,

79, 749–755.18. Kunhart, W. E.; Olsen, L. R.; Gammons, R. S. J. Chem. Educ.

1958, 35, 391.19. Schelar, V. M.; Cluff, R. B.; Roth, B. J. Chem. Educ. 1963,

40, 369–370.20. Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 512–514.21. Pedersen, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53, 418.22. Carmichael, J. W., Jr.; Bauer, J.; Sevenair, J. P.; Hnter, J. T.;

Gambrell, R. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 333–336.23. Nordstrom, B. H. Presented at the National Meeting of the

American Chemical Society, Boston, MA, April 1990; ERICDocument Reproduction Services ED347065.

24. Spencer, H. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1150–1153.25. Martin, F. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1942, 19, 274–277.26. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 146–150.27. Beistel, D. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 151–152.28. Fazio, F.; Zambotti, G. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1977, 6, 154–155.29. Goodstein, M. P.; Howe, A. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55, 171–

173.30. Bunce, D. M.; Hutchinson, K. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70,

183–187.31. Mooney, W. T., Jr. ERIC Document Reproduction Services

ED013603.32. Meckstroth, W. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1974, 51, 329.33. Pedersen, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53, 418.34. Ozsogomonyan, A.; Clinkscales, K. ERIC Document Repro-

duction Services ED148450; 1977.35. Zumdahl, Steven S. Basic Chemistry, 3rd ed.; D.C. Heath: Lex-

ington, MA, 1996.36. Silberberg, Martin S. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Mat-

ter and Change; Mosby: St. Louis, MO, 1996.37. McMurray, J.; Fay, R. C. Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall:

Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.38. Silberberg, Martin S. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter

and Change, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, 2000.