Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 151–163 | Cite as

Predicting Student Success in a Major’s Introductory Biology Course via Logistic Regression Analysis of Scientific Reasoning Ability and Mathematics Scores

  • E. David Thompson
  • Bethany V. Bowling
  • Ross E. Markle
Article

Abstract

Studies over the last 30 years have considered various factors related to student success in introductory biology courses. While much of the available literature suggests that the best predictors of success in a college course are prior college grade point average (GPA) and class attendance, faculty often require a valuable predictor of success in those courses wherein the majority of students are in the first semester and have no previous record of college GPA or attendance. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the ACT Mathematics subject exam and Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning in predicting success in a major’s introductory biology course. A logistic regression was utilized to determine the effectiveness of a combination of scientific reasoning (SR) scores and ACT math (ACT-M) scores to predict student success. In summary, we found that the model—with both SR and ACT-M as significant predictors—could be an effective predictor of student success and thus could potentially be useful in practical decision making for the course, such as directing students to support services at an early point in the semester.

Keywords

Introductory biology First-year students Predictive model Scientific reasoning Student success Retention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the students who agreed to participate in this project.

References

  1. Bart, W. M. (1972). Construction and validation of formal reasoning instruments. Psychological Reports, 30(2), 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: a new tool for a new era. Educause Review, 42(4), 40.Google Scholar
  3. Clinedinst, M.E., Hurley, S.F., & Hawkins, D.A. (2013). State of college admission: 2013. National Association of College Admissions Counselors.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: an analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 924–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eduventures. (2013). Predictive analytics in higher education: data-driven decision-making for the student life cycle. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., et al. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, S., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: multiple voices of research on teaching and learning (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Givry, D., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 1086–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han, J. (2013). Scientific reasoning: Research development, and assessment. Doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students: relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kane, M.T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R.L. Educational Measurement (4th Ed.) (pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  16. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawson, A. E. (1980). The relationship among levels of intellectual development, cognitive style and grades in a college biology course. Science Education, 64(1), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawson, A. E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: the role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: a synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J. M., & Kwon, Y.-J. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Minitab Inc. (2006). Minitab Statistical Software (Version 15.1). State College, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Moore, R. (2003). Attendance and performance: how important is it for students to attend class? Journal of College Science Teaching, 32, 367–371.Google Scholar
  25. Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students’ conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peng, C. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt, C., & Hacker, R.G. (1984). Is Lawson’s classroom test of formal reasoning valid? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44.Google Scholar
  29. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving; why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shaw, E.J., Kobrin, J.L., Patterson, B.F., & Mattern, K.D. (2012). The validity of the SAT® for predicting cumulative grade point average by college major. College Board Research Report.Google Scholar
  33. Szafran, R. F. (2001). The effect of academic load on success for new college students: is lighter better? Research in Higher Education, 42(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2055–2078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, E. & Okimoto, H. (2015, February). The PAR framework: what we’ve learned from 4 years in the learner analytics trenches. Presentation to the Educause Learner Institute: Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Webber, D. A., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010). Do expenditures other than instructional expenditures affect graduation and persistence rates in American higher education? Economics of Education Review, 29, 947–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. David Thompson
    • 1
  • Bethany V. Bowling
    • 1
  • Ross E. Markle
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, 204D Natural Science CenterNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations