Santa MonicaCollege
California chemistry diagnostic test
Request for Approval for the Renewal of the CCDT
1
October 2003
Evaluation & Analysis Conducted by:
Esau Tovar
Faculty Leader, AssessmentCenter
Muriel Walker Waugh
Chemistry
Table of Contents
Background
Demographic Characteristics for SMC
Overview of CCDT Placement at SMC
Chemistry Course Sequence
Validity-Related Information
Content Validity
Chemistry 10 Results
Chemistry 11 Results
Overall Assessment of CCDT Content Validity
Consequential validity
Student Satisfaction with English Placement
Faculty & Student Perceptions of Placement Appropriateness
Faculty & Student Perceptions on Likelihood for Success in Course
Students’ Academic Preparedness for English Courses
Overall Evaluation of Consequential-Related Information for CCDT
Reliability-Related Information
Test Bias Assessment
Panel Composition
Evaluation Results
Cut-Score Validation
Impact of Testing
Disproportionate Impact
Demographic Characteristics of the sample
Placement by Ethnicity & Gender
Disproportionate Impact by Gender
Disproportionate Impact by Ethnicity
Disproportionate Impact by Language
Disproportionate Impact by Age
Disproportionate Impact by Disability
Overall Disproportionate Impact Assessment
ADA & Accommodation
Appendix A: Course Entry & Exit Skills
CHEMISTRY 10: Introductory General Chemistry
CHEMISTRY 11: General Chemistry I
Appendix B: Request for Approval Form
California Chemistry Diagnostic Test
Validation report
Background
Demographic Characteristics for SMC
Santa MonicaCollege, located in the Westside of Los Angeles, serves a highly diverse student population with well over 80 academic and vocational programs of study. While enrollment had grown to 29,000 graded students in fall 2002, the state fiscal crisis prompted the elimination of 27% of course sections for fall 2003. Subsequently, enrollment plummeted to 23,199 graded students. Listed below are demographic characteristics for students currently enrolled at the college:
- 33% attend full-time; 67% part-time;
- 12% attend night-time classes only;
- 10% are international students;
- 56% female; 44% are male;
- 37% White, 27% Hispanic/Latino, 20% Asian, 9% African American/Black, 4% Other, 3% Filipino;
- Mean age = 25 years; median = 22;
- Approximately 3% of students indicate they have a learning impairment; 5% a hearing, speech, visual, emotional, or orthopedic impairment (based on data collected through the college’s English/ESL assessment and placement program).
Overview of CCDT Placementat SMC
Although Santa Monica College has been using the California Chemistry Diagnostic Test (CCDT) for six years, the number of students taking this test to challenge the course prerequisite for Chemistry 11 (General Chemistry I) has been relatively small compared to the total course enrollment. Over the past three years (Spring 2000 through Summer 2003) since comprehensive test results for the CCDT have been maintained, more than 700 students have completed the test and a placement assigned. With a current cutoff score of 22 points (from a maximum of 44) for “passing” the test, approximately 58% of all students assessed have placed directly into Chemistry 11. The remaining 42% have been referred to Chemistry 10 (Introductory General Chemistry). CCDT descriptive statistics for these students (N = 709) are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, students passing the test obtained a significantly higher score (M = 29.62) than students not passing (M = 16.12), thus indicating that those with sufficient chemistry knowledge and skills are in fact placing in the appropriate course. A match of CCDT records with the college’s enrollment database revealed that only 60% (n = 455) of the 709 students completing the test had enrolled in a chemistry class by the summer 2003 session.
Outcome / N / Percent / Mean / Median / Mode / SD / Min / Max
Under Cutoff / 295 / 41.6 / 16.12 / 17.00 / 19 / 3.75 / 4 / 21
Above Cutoff / 414 / 58.4 / 29.62 / 29.00 / 27 / 5.21 / 13 / 42
Total / 709 / 100.0 / 24.00 / 24.00 / 19 a / 8.127 / 4 / 42
a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Chemistry Course Sequence
A comprehensive chemistry curriculum is offered at Santa MonicaCollege, and includes introductory general chemistry (Chemistry 10), general chemistry (Chemistry 11 & 12), organic chemistry (Chemistry 21, 22, & 24), and biochemistry (Chemistry 31). With the exception of Chemistry 10, all other courses have validated prerequisites in place. Students may gain access to each of these by meeting the appropriate prerequisite with coursework completed at SMC or at another college. For those seeking entrance directly into the first semester of general chemistry (Chemistry 11), they must first demonstrate they possess the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the course. This is done by obtaining a “passing” score on the CCDT. Students are directed to enroll in Chemistry 10 when they fail to achieve the minimum passing score.
Validity-Related Information
Validity for the CCDT was assessed through content and consequential-related procedures. The methodology employed and relevant findings are discussed below.
Content Validity
Six full-time and adjunct Chemistry faculty members were recruited to participate in a content validation study of the CCDT in September 2003. The instructors were requested to independently assess the extent to which each of the 44 items composing the CCDT measured entry-level knowledge and skills necessary for success in Chemistry 10 (Introductory General Chemistry) and Chemistry 11 (General Chemistry I).In preparation for their review, instructors were provided with a list of entry and exit skills (Appendix A) for both courses, along with a rating sheet. Items were rated in response to the following question: How important is (are) the academic skill(s) or knowledge measured by this item for successful completion of Chemistry 10 and/or facilitate the acquisition of skills taught in Chemistry 11? A Likert-like scale was used to rate each item:
5 = Critical2 = Slightly Important
4 = Important1 = Not relevant at all
3 = Moderately important
Chemistry 10 Results
The mean rating for the whole test was 3.90 (SD = 1.33), suggesting that the 44 items were deemed important in measuring the skills taught in Chemistry 10. Table2 provides descriptive information for each item in descending mean order. As can be seen, ratings ranged from 4.80 for item 33 to 2.60 for item 38.
Table 2. CCDT Content Analysis Descriptives for Chemistry 10Item / N / Mean / SD / Min / Max / Item / N / Mean / SD / Min / Max
33 / 5 / 4.80 / .45 / 4 / 5 / 12 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 5
44 / 5 / 4.60 / .55 / 4 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 5
9 / 5 / 4.60 / .89 / 3 / 5 / 4 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.41 / 2 / 5
43 / 5 / 4.40 / 1.34 / 2 / 5 / 2 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 5
41 / 5 / 4.40 / .89 / 3 / 5 / 34 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.30 / 2 / 5
36 / 5 / 4.40 / 1.34 / 2 / 5 / 28 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.10 / 3 / 5
32 / 5 / 4.40 / .89 / 3 / 5 / 20 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.10 / 3 / 5
22 / 5 / 4.40 / .89 / 3 / 5 / 17 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.79 / 1 / 5
42 / 5 / 4.20 / .84 / 3 / 5 / 16 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.30 / 2 / 5
40 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.30 / 2 / 5 / 7 / 5 / 3.80 / 1.30 / 2 / 5
35 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.79 / 1 / 5 / 8 / 5 / 3.60 / 1.14 / 2 / 5
29 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.30 / 2 / 5 / 39 / 5 / 3.40 / 1.82 / 1 / 5
26 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.79 / 1 / 5 / 37 / 5 / 3.40 / 1.67 / 1 / 5
23 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.30 / 2 / 5 / 14 / 5 / 3.40 / 1.14 / 2 / 5
19 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.30 / 2 / 5 / 6 / 5 / 3.40 / 1.67 / 1 / 5
18 / 5 / 4.20 / .84 / 3 / 5 / 3 / 5 / 3.40 / 1.67 / 1 / 5
11 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.10 / 3 / 5 / 31 / 5 / 3.20 / 1.64 / 1 / 5
10 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.10 / 3 / 5 / 30 / 5 / 3.20 / 1.64 / 1 / 5
1 / 5 / 4.20 / 1.79 / 1 / 5 / 13 / 5 / 3.20 / 1.30 / 2 / 5
27 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.00 / 3 / 5 / 25 / 5 / 3.00 / 1.58 / 1 / 5
21 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.41 / 2 / 5 / 24 / 5 / 3.00 / 1.41 / 2 / 5
15 / 5 / 4.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 5 / 38 / 5 / 2.60 / 1.52 / 1 / 5
Chemistry 11 Results
The mean rating for the whole test was 3.40 (SD = 1.48), suggesting that the 44 items were deemed moderately important to important in measuring the knowledge and/or skills required to enter Chemistry 11. Table 3 provides descriptive information for each item in descending mean order. As can be seen, ratings ranged from 4.67 for item 33 to 2.00 for item 39.
Table 3. CCDT Content Analysis Descriptives for Chemistry 11Item / N / Mean / SD / Min / Max / Item / N / Mean / SD / Min / Max
33 / 3 / 4.67 / 0.58 / 4 / 5 / 31 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.16 / 2 / 4
9 / 3 / 4.33 / 1.16 / 3 / 5 / 29 / 3 / 3.33 / 2.08 / 1 / 5
27 / 3 / 4.00 / 1.00 / 3 / 5 / 18 / 3 / 3.33 / 0.58 / 3 / 4
22 / 3 / 4.00 / 1.00 / 3 / 5 / 17 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.53 / 2 / 5
19 / 3 / 4.00 / 1.00 / 3 / 5 / 16 / 3 / 3.33 / 0.58 / 3 / 4
5 / 3 / 4.00 / 1.73 / 2 / 5 / 15 / 3 / 3.33 / 2.08 / 1 / 5
43 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 14 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.16 / 2 / 4
42 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 13 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.16 / 2 / 4
41 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 11 / 3 / 3.33 / 0.58 / 3 / 4
40 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 10 / 3 / 3.33 / 0.58 / 3 / 4
35 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 2 / 3 / 3.33 / 2.08 / 1 / 5
32 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 37 / 3 / 3.00 / 2.00 / 1 / 5
28 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 30 / 3 / 3.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 4
26 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 25 / 3 / 3.00 / 1.00 / 2 / 4
23 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 7 / 3 / 3.00 / 1.00 / 2 / 4
21 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 6 / 3 / 3.00 / 2.00 / 1 / 5
20 / 3 / 3.67 / 1.16 / 3 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 3.00 / 1.73 / 2 / 5
12 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 38 / 3 / 2.67 / 1.53 / 1 / 4
1 / 3 / 3.67 / 2.31 / 1 / 5 / 24 / 3 / 2.67 / 0.58 / 2 / 3
44 / 3 / 3.33 / 2.08 / 1 / 5 / 8 / 3 / 2.67 / 0.58 / 2 / 3
36 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.16 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 2.33 / 1.58 / 1 / 4
34 / 3 / 3.33 / 1.53 / 2 / 5 / 39 / 3 / 2.00 / 1.73 / 1 / 4
Overall Assessment of CCDT Content Validity
As exemplified in Tables 2 and 3, all CCDT items were found to be relevant in measuring the skills taught in Chemistry 10 and those needed to enter Chemistry 11. This is not to say that all items are equally important or free of concerns to faculty raters. Specifically, one rater indicated the following:
- Item 33, assessing the physical properties of metals, was deemed inappropriate item given that “more than one metal can have the same density.”
- Item 38, assessing the ability to think in 3-D is not emphasized in Chemistry 10; is to a small degree in Chemistry 11; but is fully emphasized in Chemistry 21 and 22 (organic chemistry).
- Items 27, 28, 34 are more relevant to the second semester of general chemistry (Chemistry 12, a course not accessible through CCDT placement).
Additionally, one rater pointed out that in her experience teaching Chemistry 11, “math skills are as important as, if not more important than, [previous] chemistry knowledge,” which is not the focus of the CCDT.
Consequential validity
Consequential validity for the CCDT was conducted for the first time at Santa MonicaCollege in fall 2003. As stated previously, only a small number of students have taken the CCDT in an attempt to enroll directly into Chemistry 11. Although we attempted to collect consequential-related data in all chemistry 10 and 11 classes—where nearly 1,000 students are enrolled this fall—only 48 students who completed the CCDT enrolled in one of those courses for the first time. Thus, the findings discussed below should be interpreted carefully.
Student Satisfaction with English Placement
The majority of students completing the CCDT indicated they were satisfied with their placement level. Specifically, 87% indicate being satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
Faculty & Student Perceptions of Placement Appropriateness
According to Table 4, faculty and students tend to agree on their placement level recommendation the majority of time (73.8%). Specifically, there is a 69% agreement in Chemistry 10, with 31% of students indicating their placement should have been higher. A 77% agreement rate was reached in Chemistry 11, where faculty believed that 15% of students at this level should have placed lower.
Table 4. Faculty by Student Perception of CCDT PlacementFaculty Perception:
Lower Course / Faculty Perception:
Appropriate Placement / Total
Student Perception / n / % / n / % / n / %
Chemistry 10 / Appropriate / 11 / 68.8 / 11 / 68.8
Higher Course / 5 / 31.3 / 5 / 31.3
Total / 16 / 100.0 / 16 / 100.0
Chemistry 11 / Lower / 0 / 1 / 3.8 / 1 / 3.8
Appropriate / 4 / 15.4 / 20 / 76.9 / 24 / 92.3
Higher Course / 0 / 1 / 3.8 / 1 / 3.8
Total / 4 / 15.4 / 22 / 84.6 / 26 / 100.0
Total Agreement: (11 + 20) / 42 = 73.8%
Faculty & Student Perceptions on Likelihood for Success in Course
Table 5presents an overview of instructors and students’ predictions on students’ likelihood to complete their respective chemistry class successfully (“C” or better). Overall, there was an 89% agreement that students would probably or very likely complete the class. However, perceptions differed markedly by group. This was particularly the case in Chemistry 11, where instructors estimated that only 84% of students were likely to be successful, whereas 100% of students believed that to be true.
Table 5. Faculty by Student Perception for Students’ Success in CourseStudent Likelihood for Success / Faculty Likelihood for Success / Total
Very unlikely / Probable / Very likely
n / % / n / % / n / % / n / %
CHEM 10 / Probable / 0 / .0 / 4 / 19.0 / 0 / .0 / 4 / 19.0
Very likely / 1 / 4.8 / 11 / 52.4 / 5 / 23.8 / 17 / 81.0
Total / 1 / 4.8 / 15 / 71.4 / 5 / 23.8 / 21 / 100.0
CHEM 11 / Probable / 3 / 12.0 / 2 / 8.0 / 1 / 4.0 / 6 / 24.0
Very likely / 1 / 4.0 / 7 / 28.0 / 11 / 44.0 / 19 / 76.0
Total / 4 / 16.0 / 9 / 36.0 / 12 / 48.0 / 25 / 100.0
Total Agreement: (20 + 21) / 46 = 89.2%
Students’ Academic Preparedness for Chemistry Courses
Instructors were asked to report on the adequacy of students’ work performed in class compared to that of other students, while students reported on their perceived academic preparation for the class. Table 6 presents a crosstabulation of their responses. Chemistry 10 instructors indicated that 86% of students performed average to better/exceptional work in the class; whereas 81% of students indicated they were appropriately prepared or over-prepared for the course. In Chemistry 11, instructors indicated that 89% of students performed average to better/exceptional work in the class; whereas 77% of students indicated they were appropriately prepared or over-prepared for the course. Taken together, these findings suggest that students tend to underestimate their skill-level to some degree.
Overall Evaluation of Consequential-Related Information for CCDT
While the number of students included in the consequential-related validity study was small (N = 48), our findings indicate that students and faculty members generally agree with students’ placement level recommendation, thereby lending support to their satisfaction with CCDT placement. This was further corroborated by high levels of agreement between students and instructors on students’ quality of work/academic preparedness and their estimation that they were more likely than not to complete their course successfully.
While the findings are encouraging, the small sample size dictates they be viewed as tentative. It is recommended that this study be conducted again over the next few semesters and collect additional consequential-related data as students enroll in chemistry classes after completing the CCDT.
Table 6. Faculty by Students’ Perceptions of Academic Preparedness for CourseStudent Perceived Academic Preparedness / Faculty Perception of Students’ Work Habits / Total
Deficient / Average / Better/Exceptional
n / % / n / % / n / % / n / %
CHEM 10 / Not prepared / 0 / .0 / 3 / 14.3 / 1 / 4.8 / 4 / 19.0
Appropriately prepared / 1 / 4.8 / 9 / 42.9 / 3 / 14.3 / 13 / 61.9
Over prepared / 2 / 9.5 / 1 / 4.8 / 1 / 4.8 / 4 / 19.0
Total / 3 / 14.3 / 13 / 61.9 / 5 / 23.8 / 21 / 100.0
CHEM 11 / Not prepared / 0 / .0 / 4 / 15.4 / 2 / 7.7 / 6 / 23.1
Appropriately prepared / 3 / 11.5 / 7 / 26.9 / 9 / 34.6 / 19 / 73.1
Over prepared / 0 / .0 / 0 / .0 / 1 / 3.8 / 1 / 3.8
Total / 3 / 11.5 / 11 / 42.3 / 12 / 46.2 / 26 / 100.0
Reliability-Related Information
Reliability information for the 1993 CCDT was obtained from the Examinations Institute of the American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education. Norms from a national sample are presented in Table 7. As can be seen, the mean score for the norming sample was 19.35 (SD = 7.01). The internal consistency for the test was measured via the Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-21 = .80, with a SEM = 3.15).
Table 7. 1993 CCDT National NormsScore / Percentile / Score / Percentile
44 / 100 / 19 / 51
43 / 100 / 18 / 45
42 / 100 / 17 / 39
41 / 100 / 16 / 35
40 / 99 / 15 / 30
39 / 98 / 14 / 24
38 / 98 / 13 / 18
37 / 98 / 12 / 12
36 / 98 / 11 / 8
35 / 97 / 10 / 6
34 / 97 / 9 / 5
33 / 96 / 8 / 4
32 / 95 / 7 / 3
31 / 94 / 6 / 2
30 / 92 / 5 / 1
29 / 90 / 4 / 1
28 / 89 / 3 / 1
27 / 86 / 2 / 0
26 / 84 / 1 / 0
25 / 81 / N = / 1,110
24 / 77 / Mean = / 19.35
23 / 73 / SD = / 7.01
22 / 70 / Median = / 18.80
21 / 64 / KR-21 = / 0.80
20 / 57 / SEM = / 3.15
Test Bias Assessment
A diverse panel of 20faculty and students was convened to assess the CCDT for biases in content and language. Committee members were instructed to rate each test item and instructions by answering the following question: Does the test item contain content or language that would be deemed unfair or distasteful to a particular group of examinees (e.g., ethnicity, gender, age, disability, culture, spoken language)? Members were provided with a rating form and asked to indicate if the item in question was “free of bias,” “unfair,” or “offensive.” Furthermore, they were instructed to provide a brief explanation if they believed an item was unfair, offensive, or otherwise presented some type of concern.
Panel Composition
The panel was composed of ethnically diverse full-time and adjunct chemistry faculty and faculty from other disciplines (counseling, assessment, and disabled students) and students of variant ages.
Ethnicity
The specific ethnic composition of the group was as follows:
- 10 Caucasian/White, 5 Asian, 5 Hispanic.
Gender
The gender composition of the group was:
- 9 male, 11 female
Evaluation Results
Table 8 presents a summary of the test bias evaluation conducted by the panel members. Of the 44 CCDT items: 35 were found to be free of biases, nine (#2, 14, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, and 39) were found to be “unfair,” and no items were found to be “offensive.” Listed below are the reasons why nine items were rated unfair:
- Item 2:
- Item 14:
- Item 27:
- Item 28:
- Item 30:
Student: [Item 30, option B] is misspelled.
Chemistry 11 Student: #30 is unfair because not everyone knows what a lump sugar or fine powder is.
- Item 32:
- Item 35:
Student: In my opinion, it is unfair to ask the student to determine the length in the units of the ruler, since the distance between each two line segments changes.
- Item 37:
Chemistry 12 Student: Perhaps students not familiar with metric system are at a disadvantage.
Chemistry 11 Student: Some international student may not know the exact meaning of the word “width.”
Chemistry 11 Student: In the US, we aren’t taught the metric system from a young age, so it might be difficult for some to determine the width in centimeters.
Chemistry 11 Student: #37 is unfair because Chem 11 students don’t have to know the approximate width of the paper.
Chemistry 11 Student: In my opinion it is unfair to ask the student to estimate the page’s width in metric units, especially if he is not used to the metric system. Students’ ability to approximate lengths should not be tested.
- Item 39:
Taken together, the comments above do not sufficiently raise a “red flag” so as to prevent the college from continuing to use the CCDT in chemistry placement. The comments do not specifically indicate that the language or content is offensive to any particular group of students. While Item 37 may presume that test-takers should be familiar with the metric system, it is the faculty’s expectation that students taking science courses, including chemistry, should be familiar with it at even the most basic level. As for Item 35, which was deemed by one rater as hard to read, the CCDT is available in large print format for individuals that request it or have difficulty reading the “normal” test.
Table 8. CCDT Bias Analysis SummaryItem / Rating / Item / Rating
Free of Bias / Unfair / Offensive / Free of Bias / Unfair / Offensive
1 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 23 / 20 / 0 / 0
2 / 19 / 1 / 0 / 24 / 20 / 0 / 0
3 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 25 / 20 / 0 / 0
4 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 26 / 20 / 0 / 0
5 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 27 / 19 / 1 / 0
6 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 28 / 19 / 1 / 0
7 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 29 / 20 / 0 / 0
8 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 30 / 17 / 3 / 0
9 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 31 / 20 / 0 / 0
10 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 32 / 18 / 2 / 0
11 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 33 / 20 / 0 / 0
12 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 34 / 20 / 0 / 0
13 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 35 / 18 / 2 / 0
14 / 19 / 1 / 0 / 36 / 20 / 0 / 0
15 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 37 / 14 / 6 / 0
16 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 38 / 20 / 0 / 0
17 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 39 / 19 / 1 / 0
18 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 40 / 20 / 0 / 0
19 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 41 / 20 / 0 / 0
20 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 42 / 20 / 0 / 0
21 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 43 / 20 / 0 / 0
22 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 44 / 20 / 0 / 0
Cut-Score Validation
The analysis of the impact of cut scores on Chemistry placement was based on CCDT test records maintained since spring 2000. Since that time over 700 students have completed the test; however, not every student has enrolled in a chemistry class upon completion of the test. Thus, the analyses discussed in this section are based on 455 students for whom enrollment and outcomes data was available. As seen in Table 9, 61% of students successfully complete the CCDT with a minimum score of 22 points, therefore placing into Chemistry 11. The additional 39% unsuccessfully completed the test and were directed to enroll in Chemistry 10, an introductory course.
Outcome / N / Percent / Mean Score / SD / Min / Max
Fail / 178 / 39.1 / 16.15a / 3.80 / 5 / 21
Pass / 277 / 60.9 / 29.58a / 5.16 / 22 / 42
Total / 455 / 100.0 / 24.33 / 8.06
ap < .001
Table 10 presents CCDT descriptive information for students placed/enrolled in Chemistry 10 and 11 along with course success outcome. For the purpose of this analysis, successful completion of the course is defined as having obtained a grade of “C” (Cr) or better. Unsuccessful is defined as having completed the course with a “D,” “F,” “NC,” or “W” grade. As the table suggests, CCDT scores for successful and unsuccessful students differed to a statistically significant degree. With regard to course completion, 90% of students placing into Chemistry 11 completed the course successfully, compared to 69% of all students enrolled in the class in fall 2002. As for Chemistry 10, 76% of students placed into the course completed the class successfully;whereas only 63% of all students enrolled in the class in fall 2002 were successful.