Exploring factors within an introductory course that influence students’ perception of chemistry

Abstract

A large number of students across the globe each year enroll in general chemistry courses as an academic requirement to obtain their degree. Although many take chemistry courses, it is not a subject sought out by many as a potential career. In some instances, chemistry hinders students from achieving their career goals. A plethora of chemical education research has focused on improving student attitude, self-efficacy, and motivation to enhance academic performance and retention in chemistry. However, only a few reports focus on the factors that affect student perception and self-efficacy towards chemistry. These factors are important as they can help us implement targeted interventions to improve perceptions and self-efficacy as we seek to increase diversity in STEM fields. In this research study, the most influential factors that affect a student's perception of chemistry are uncovered, and whether these factors are related to gender identity, letter grade, or pursuit of chemistry as a career. For our study population, the course instructor and course structure are the two most influential factors in a student's perception of chemistry. In addition, academically low-achieving students (i.e., students who earned Cs or lower in a course) are more likely to list the course structure as an influential factor, and high-achieving students (i.e., students who earned Bs or higher in a course) are more likely to select the course instructor as an influential factor. The majority (66%) of students who selected the course instructor as an influential factor believed that they would perform well in future chemistry courses, while 47% of those who selected the course structure had the same belief in their future chemistry performance. Overall, less than 11% of the study population (51 of 447 students) were interested in pursuing chemistry as a career after completing CHEM 1. However, the answer to increasing the number of chemistry majors could be held within course design and teaching pedagogy. This research study seeks to highlight the relationship between gender and letter grade with factors that influence perception of chemistry, and we hope the results can guide instructors as they consider course structure and teaching pedagogy.

---

Introduction and background

For decades, general chemistry courses have served (and continue to serve) as “gateway courses” for many STEM careers such as pharmacy, engineering, nursing, and medicine (Allenbaugh and Herrera, 2014). Not only are general chemistry courses taken by thousands of students each year, but chemistry also plays a significant role in society (Dunn, 2012; Campos et al., 2019; Sikder et al., 2021). It is important to look at student experiences in these introductory chemistry courses because of the persistent shortage of STEM majors and graduates, especially those from underrepresented groups (e.g., gender and racial minorities) in these fields (Chen, 2013). Research suggests that this shortage of students from underrepresented groups in undergraduate STEM degrees could be due to negative environments and a lack of support (Linley et al., 2018). Addressing this shortage within higher education starts with equity in undergraduate programs, and this is why there is a need to explore the students’ thoughts toward pursuing (or not pursuing) STEM fields at the undergraduate level.

Several studies have demonstrated that moving to intentional, equitable, and inclusive evidence-based teaching can help minimize equity gaps in STEM fields (White et al., 2021). Evidence-based teaching practices (e.g. active learning strategies like opportunities for students to practice problems in class), have been shown to increase student grades in general chemistry and organic chemistry, particularly students from underrepresented groups (Graham et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2021; Casey et al., 2023). In addition, Casey et al. highlighted that these teaching strategies resulted in lowered DFW (i.e., students who receive a D, an F, or withdrawal) rates, and an increased retention of students pursuing higher-level chemistry courses.

In addition to these evidence-based teaching practices, implementing evidence-based assessment practices have proven successful in shortening performance gaps between underrepresented groups and majority groups (Bolger and Kellaghan, 1990; Hazel et al., 1997; DeMars, 1998; Stanger-Hall, 2012; Shah et al., 2022). Studies have shown that introductory STEM courses typically focus on assessing lower-level cognitive skills (typically using multiple choice questions), which have been found to negatively impact students from underrepresented groups (Shah et al., 2022). Grading techniques like mastery-based assessments, standards-based grading, and specifications-based grading systems have been shown to increase student grades and provide more equitable environments for student learning (Boesdorfer et al., 2018; Bowen and Cooper, 2022; Rosa et al., 2022; McKnelly et al., 2023). These findings are significant because research has shown a positive correlations between a student's success in a first-year chemistry course and their likelihood of completing a degree in a STEM-related field (Allenbaugh and Herrera, 2014; Stone et al., 2018).

Student self-efficacy and perceptions

As STEM education researchers seek to broadening participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields, research focusing on the affective domain, which is defined by Brett et al. as “emotions as well as their outward expression,” is proving to be a crucial aspect of this quest. The affective domain includes factors such as attitudes, perceptions, and motivation, all of which have been shown to impact students’ success and persistence in STEM fields. Many chemistry education studies have investigated the affective domain of learning to monitor students’ attitudes, self-efficacy, persistence, and retention in different chemistry courses, and the results have shown a positive correlation between students’ attitudes toward chemistry and performance within the course (Flaherty, 2020). Students with more positive perceptions tend to perform better in the course, while those with more negative perceptions struggle more often with course material (Pintrich and de Groot, 1990; Multon et al., 1991; Pajares and Miller, 1994; Zusho et al., 2003; Tenaw, 2013; Flaherty, 2020). In addition to perceptions, self-efficacy (“Self-Efficacy Teaching Tip Sheet,” 2009), defined as an individual's belief in their ability to do what is necessary to achieve something (e.g., a student's belief in their ability to perform well in a chemistry course), has been shown to be positively correlated to achievement in STEM fields (Aurah, 2017; Keşan and Kaya, 2018). Furthermore, connections have been shown to exist between self-efficacy and career interests (Lopez et al., 1997; Britner and Pajares, 2006; Lyons, 2006; Estrada et al., 2018). For example, several studies (Singh et al., 2002; Tyson et al., 2007; Rask, 2010) have shown positive correlations between mathematics self-efficacy and interest in STEM careers. If factors that influence students’ perceptions and self-efficacy towards chemistry can be determined, specifically within introductory chemistry courses, then perhaps new practices can be implemented to improve students’ perceptions and self-efficacy toward chemistry and ultimately increase the percentage of individuals who seek to pursue STEM careers.

Increasing the enrollment and retention of undergraduate students in chemistry is crucial to continuing the discipline's broader impacts on society. Research has shown that cognitive and psychological factors were the most impactful in a student's perception during the transition into higher education (Gonyea et al., 2003). Students who are ill-prepared for university are more likely to underperform during their first year, which research has shown to be the year with the most academic failure (McInnis et al., 2000). In a study by (Leong et al., 2021), student perceptions of preparedness entering tertiary education were a key factor in their academic achievement and retention in introductory chemistry courses. In addition, students listed lecture topics, study skills, and laboratory skills as aspects of a chemistry course that affect academic achievement. Introductory chemistry has the highest withdrawal rate compared to any other discipline, thus emphasis on factors that affect and strategies to improve academic achievement in chemistry is found throughout chemical education literature (Lewis, 2014; Bamiro, 2015; Vincent-Ruz et al., 2020; Agwu and Nmadu, 2023). Highlighting the factors that influence student perceptions could be the key to improving students’ academic achievement, increase student engagement, and recover enrollment within the subject to increase diversity graduation rates in STEM.

A study analyzing why scientists chose to study science observed that their self-efficacy, science instructors, or a specific science course were the three most influential factors which made them pursue science as a career (Venville et al., 2013). Self-efficacy is an important factor in a student's decision to pursue chemistry as a major and career (Avargil et al., 2020). Self-efficacy has been reported as a leading predictor of whether a student will persist through a subject into the next sequence (Wright et al., 2013). Actively working to improve student self-efficacy is important for stimulating student engagement and curiosity to potentially increase enrolment for STEM minorities (Grunert and Bodner, 2011). One positive experience in a classroom can cause a student to become interested in the content and impact on their career choice (Watkins and Mazur, 2013). These studies all indicate the importance of research in the affective domain (including perceptions and self-efficacy) as chemistry educators look for new ways to increase representation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. This study seeks to investigate factors that influence students’ perceptions of chemistry, as understanding these factors from the students’ point of view can help instructors continue to shape their courses to meet student's needs better.

Throughout the decades, student-instructor interactions have been pivotal in a student's perception of and attitude toward a particular science discipline (Astin and Astin, 1992; Kuh and Hu, 2001; Rask, 2010; Collini et al., 2023). Research studies have reported incorporating interventions to potentially improve student interests in STEM (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2018; Reinhold et al., 2018). Research studies have shown that students who enjoy their undergraduate introductory STEM course are more likely to pursue that major as a career (Ware et al., 1985; Maltese and Tai, 2011). It is important to know if an introductory chemistry course can change a student's perception of and interest in chemistry. In addition, observing a change in self-efficacy after completing the course would be beneficial to know due to its positive correlation with retention and choice of career. Ultimately, this research will be used to help instructors develop chemistry courses that increase student self-efficacy, undergraduate motivation, and graduation rates in the chemistry discipline.

Today, there is a new generation of students in the classroom who have been exposed to the recent technological advances in AI text generation and have overcome the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. The decline in student 4-year university enrolment (“Current Term Enrollment Estimates|National Student Clearinghouse Research Center,” 2023) and chemistry course engagement (Wu and Teets, 2021), due to the pandemic, emphasizes the inevitable decline in graduation rates in chemistry and other STEM disciplines. Thus, it is crucial to investigate what influences this generation of students’ perception of chemistry and use that information to improve student experiences with introductory chemistry courses. This study seeks to utilize quantitative thematic analysis methods to amplify the participants' voices and explore the different factors students believe influence their perceptions of chemistry after taking a general chemistry 1 course (CHEM 1). The research questions this study seeks to address are:

1. What factors, within a general chemistry 1 course (CHEM 1), are likely to influence a student's perception of chemistry?

2. Are there differences in students’ desire to pursue and chemistry self-efficacy between genders and letter grades in a general chemistry course?

3. Is there a relationship between a student's (a) self-efficacy or (b) interest in pursuing chemistry (RQ2) and the factors that influence their perception of chemistry (RQ1)?

Methods

Research design

This study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the institution where the study was carried out (#2207611431). Data were collected using online surveys created in Qualtrics and were analyzed using R, JMP Pro 17 and Microsoft Excel. Recruitment emails were sent out to faculty members teaching CHEM 1 during each semester the study was conducted, and these instructors were asked to forward the email to their students to participate in the study. The instructors were encouraged to offer extra credit to students who completed the surveys.

Study context

General Chemistry 1 at the institution where the study was carried out, is taught over 16 weeks. The population for this course typically consists majorly of first-year students who are mostly STEM majors. Students are required to enrol concurrently in a laboratory section, which is a separate course. The typical enrolment in a lecture section of CHEM 1 is 120 students in the fall semester, with about 8 different sections and 3–5 instructors. In the spring semester, there are about 7 sections with an average of 100 students in each section and 3 or 4 instructors. The number of instructors varies based on the required teaching loads for each instructor. All CHEM 1 courses use a similar syllabus with a common final exam. All sections are lecture-based, and exams make up about 70–75% of the course grade, with the remaining 25–30% coming from homework assignments and in-class participation (as determined appropriate by the individual instructor). The topics covered in CHEM 1 are based on the American Chemical Society's guidelines for the first-term general chemistry exam (e.g., atomic structure, stoichiometry, gases, etc.).

Participants

Participants were students enrolled in CHEM 1 during the Fall 2022 and Spring 2023 semesters, who completed both the pre-survey (administered during the first two weeks of the semester) and the post-survey (administered a couple of weeks before the end of the semester). The total number of participants was 447 (Table 1). Participants who identified as female accounted for 57% (n = 253) of the population, and the remaining participants identified as male (42%, n = 189) or as other (e.g., non-binary, genderfluid) (1%, n = 5). As only five participants did not identify as either male or female, their data were not discussed as a part of the results. Approximately 89% (n = 397) of the participants who completed the post-survey were Caucasian. The ethnicity distribution is similar to the overall distribution at the institution where this study was conducted, with Caucasian students slightly over-represented in this sample (89% compared to 83%) (“Consumer Information|WVU Morgantown Student Body Diversity,” n.d.). The majority (71%, n = 316) of students taking CHEM 1 were first-year students, and most received a passing letter grade of A (29%, n = 128), B (29%, n = 129), or C (26%, n = 116).

Table 1 Demographics from survey

	FA ′22 + SP ′23 (N = 447) n (%)
Gender
Male	189 (42%)
Female	253 (57%)
Other	5 (1%)
Race/ethnicity
Asian	12 (3%)
Black/African	8 (2%)
Hispanic/Latinx	7 (2%)
Native American	1 (0.2%)
Mixed-race	9 (2%)
Caucasian	397 (89%)
Prefer not to answer	12 (3%)
Letter grades
A	128 (29%)
B	129 (29%)
C	116 (26%)
D	53 (12%)
F	14 (3%)
FSA	4 (1%)
W	3 (1%)
Year of study
Freshman	316 (71%)
Sophomore	94 (21%)
Junior	29 (7%)
Senior	5 (1%)
Other	3 (1%)

---

Data collection and analysis

At the beginning of each semester, the participants were invited to complete the modified Attitudes Towards Science Inventory (mATSI) to determine their attitudes toward science prior to taking the general chemistry course (Weinburgh and Steele, 2000). The mATSI consists of 25 items on a 7-point Likert scale that measures student attitudes based on five categories: teacher, anxiety, value, self-efficacy, and desire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to establish the validity of the data collected across the two different semesters. The goodness of fit indices was used to evaluate the model produced by CFA and using the suggested cutoff values, the model was shown to be a good to acceptable fit (CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08 and SRMR < 0.05) (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The five factors measured in the original mATSI instrument were observed and both Cronbach's alpha (>0.7) and McDonald's omega (>0.7) were used to determine the reliability of the scales measuring these five factors (Komperda et al., 2018). As this study was investigating perceptions and self-efficacy, we chose to focus on the three factors concerned with these constructs – anxiety, desire, and self-efficacy. As an additional measure of reliability, two attention verification questions were added to the pre- and post-surveys (Q52 and Q53 in ESI†). Participants who missed one or both questions on each survey were removed. The instrument was administered using Qualtrics, and the data was converted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using R and JMP Pro 17.

Results and discussion

RQ1: What factors, within a general chemistry I course (CHEM 1), are likely to influence a student's perception of chemistry?

Responses from the post-survey were used to answer RQ1. The post-survey can be found in the ESI.† Approximately, 53% (n = 235) of the total participants (n = 447) had a more positive perception of chemistry after completion of CHEM 1 (Fig. 1). The remaining students were split evenly between a more negative perception of chemistry (24%, n = 108) or a perception that had not changed (23%, n = 104) as a result of taking CHEM 1. It is of interest to discover what factors within a CHEM 1 course contribute to these changes in perception because these findings can be used by the instructor to improve their course for future students.

Fig. 1 Changes in student perception toward chemistry after taking CHEM 1. The effect of CHEM 1 on student perception of chemistry was measured by asking students to select the best fit response to the question provided above the ring graph. The majority of students had a more positive perception of chemistry after taking CHEM 1 (53%, n = 235).

Fig. 2 shows the distribution of student-reported factors that influenced their perceptions towards chemistry (n = 566). The students were allowed to choose multiple responses for influential factors; thus, one student could be represented in more than one category, which is why the total number of responses (n = 566) is different from the total number of participants (n = 447). The course instructor was the most selected influential factor toward student perception of chemistry (n = 268, 47%). The course structure accounted for 29% (n = 163) of the total responses chosen by students. The remaining influential factors that students chose accounted for 24% (n = 135) of student responses.

Fig. 2 Representative ranking of the influential factors that effect student perception toward chemistry. The box graph depicts the most selected influential factors are the course instructor (47%, n = 268) and course structure (29%, n = 163).

The student final perception groups (Fig. 1) and their choice of influential factors (Fig. 2) were compared to identify trends between the two (Table 2). The two most popular responses were the course instructor (n = 268) and the course structure (n = 163), which includes course content and exams. Of the students who selected the course instructor, the majority (78%, n = 210) had a more positive perception of chemistry after completing CHEM 1. Only 11% (n = 30) of the respondents in this category had a more negative perception of chemistry. However, of the 163 students who selected course instructor as an influential factor, 49% (n = 80) had a more negative perception of chemistry by the end of the semester. Of the remaining students who selected the course structure, 39% (n = 63) had a more positive perception of chemistry and 12% (n = 20) had no change in perception after taking CHEM 1. Although the course is designed by the instructor, the data show that students with a more negative perception tend to relate their experience in CHEM 1 to the course structure (course content and exams) rather than the instructor, while students with a more positive perception are more influenced by the course instructor. Further studies investigating what these terms truly mean to students could be beneficial as instructors consider how to continue to improve their courses.

Table 2 Relationship between the influential factors within CHEM 1 and student final perceptions toward CHEM 1

	Influential factors within CHEM 1	My perception has stayed the same (N = 63) n (%)	Other (N = 6) n (%)	Other science courses you are taking this semester (N = 11) n (%)	Other science instructors (N = 2) n (%)	The course instructor (N = 268) n (%)	The course structure (including the course content and exams) (N = 163) n (%)	The lab TA/instructor (N = 53) n (%)
a It should be noted that 104 students indicated that their perceptions towards chemistry did not change (“no change”) as a result of taking CHEM 1, however, when asked which factor(s) influenced their perception, only 60% of these students selected “my perception has stayed the same”. For this question, student could select multiple options, which is why the responses are greater than the total number of respondents.
How has your perception of chemistry changed after taking CHEM 1?	More positive	1 (2%)	2 (33%)	7 (64%)	1 (50%)	210 (78%)	63 (39%)	38 (72%)
	More negative	2 (3%)	4 (67%)	2 (18%)	1 (50%)	30 (11%)	80 (49%)	9 (17%)
	No change^a	60 (95%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)^a	0 (0%)	28 (10%)^a	20 (12%)^a	6 (11%)^a

---

RQ2: Are there differences in students’ desire to pursue careers in chemistry and their chemistry self-efficacy between genders and letter grades in a general chemistry course (CHEM 1)?

To address RQ2, students’ responses to the pre- and post-survey and questions 34 and 35 on the post survey were analyzed. Questions 34 and 35 asked students to choose the option that best fits their experience from the prompt, “As a result of taking this course…” (ESI†). The results were categorized based on gender and letter grade. The data presented is intended to highlight any differences in individual self-efficacy and desire to pursue a career in chemistry based on gender and final letter grade in CHEM 1.

The participants’ responses to the mATSI pre- and post-survey questions were also analyzed by gender and final letter grade and the results compared to their responses to the prompts provided in questions 34 and 35. Table 3 shows the averages of the responses to the three different factors (desire, anxiety, and self-efficacy) based on gender and final course grade. Across all demographics, the post-survey scores were lower/more negative compared to the pre-survey scores, and all differences were significant (p < 0.05) with a few exceptions. All results for participants with a final grade of A and F/FSA/W (small sample size, n = 21) were not significant. In addition, differences observed for the anxiety factor was only significant for female participants and participants who earned a C in the course, with small to medium effect sizes.

Table 3 Pre- and post-survey averages for mATSI scores for desire, anxiety, and self-efficacy by gender and final course grades

	Pre-desire (SD)	Post-desire (SD)	P value (Cohen's d)	Pre-anxiety (SD)	Post-anxiety (SD)	P value (Cohen's d)	Pre-self-efficacy (SD)	Post self-efficacy (SD)	P value (Cohen's d)
a Indicates not statistically significant values.
Female (n = 253)	5.67 (1.02)	5.18 (1.22)	0.00 (0.43)	2.84 (1.25)	3.19 (1.41)	0.00 (0.26)	2.95 (1.04)	3.33 (1.28)	0.00 (0.33)
Male (n = 189)	5.59 (0.94)	5.13 (1.22)	0.00 (0.42)	2.46 (1.08)	2.56 (1.22)	0.39^a	2.71 (0.98)	3.04 (1.12)	0.00 (0.31)
As (n = 128)	5.89 (0.95)	5.78 (0.98)	0.36^a	2.41 (1.14)	2.23 (0.99)	0.18^a	2.41 (0.82)	2.29 (0.81)	0.25^a
Bs (n = 129)	5.74 (0.93)	5.31 (0.98)	0.00 (0.45)	2.55 (1.06)	2.76 (1.20)	0.13^a	2.83 (0.94)	3.06 (0.91)	0.047 (0.25)
Cs (n = 116)	5.44 (0.93)	4.79 (1.24)	0.00 (0.59)	2.87 (1.16)	3.41 (1.41)	0.00 (0.42)	3.10 (0.97)	3.78 (1.16)	0.00 (0.64)
Ds (n = 53)	5.32 (0.94)	4.48 (1.27)	0.00 (0.75)	3.04 (1.37)	3.48 (1.45)	0.11^a	3.24 (1.16)	4.10 (1.13)	0.00 (0.75)
F/FSA/W (n = 21)	5.34 (1.32)	4.52 (1.67)	0.09^a	3.25 (1.23)	3.84 (1.61)	0.23^a	3.38 (1.34)	4.10 (1.54)	0.11^a

---

Even though most of the differences observed in these results are significant, it is important to correctly interpret what these differences mean. A 7-point Likert scale was used with values ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Looking at students’ desires to continue engaging with science, responses for the first four student populations (female, male, As and Bs) fall between the agree and somewhat agree range. These students are expressing an overall desire for science even after taking CHEM 1. However, students with lower grades (Cs, Ds and F/FSA/W) express fewer positive desires for science after taking CHEM 1, with their post responses falling more within the “neither agree nor disagree (4)” range, compared to the “somewhat agree (5)” range.

Regarding self-efficacy, it is interesting to note that even though the A group did not show a significant difference, this was the only group that showed a positive increase in self-efficacy after taking CHEM 1. In addition to this, students in the female, male and B groups showed a significant decrease in self-efficacy (with small effect sizes), however, their average responses show that they generally disagree (or somewhat disagree) with statements indicating negative self-efficacy. However, students in the C and D groups went from somewhat disagreeing with negative statements regarding their self-efficacy, to neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these statements. These results were not only significant, but they also had medium to large effect sizes, indicating a substantial difference between pre and post responses, as compared to the other groups.

To triangulate the findings from the pre- and post-surveys, we also investigated the student responses to questions 34 and 35 in the post survey. Even though the mATSI survey items had “science or science classes”, we believe the students responses to chemistry specific items would be similar. This, however, is one limitation of this study. Of the 447 participants, 55% (n = 245) indicated positive self-efficacy that they could perform well in future chemistry courses based on their experience in CHEM 1 (Fig. 3). In contrast, only 28% (n = 124) of respondents believed they would not perform well in other chemistry courses. The remaining 17% (n = 78) of students believe that CHEM 1 did not affect their self-efficacy in future chemistry courses. Although majority the participants in this study completed CHEM 1 with a positive self-efficacy in their ability to do well in future chemistry courses, only 11% (n = 51) were interested in pursuing a career in chemistry after completing CHEM 1. For most of the students, CHEM 1 either did not influence their desire to pursue a career in chemistry (45%, n = 199) or it caused them to lose interest in pursuing a career in chemistry (44%, n = 197). For future studies, it would be of interest to explore the factors that influenced the students who stated they desired to pursue a career in chemistry after taking CHEM 1.

Fig. 3 Students' self-efficacy towards chemistry (left) and desire to pursue chemistry (right) was measured by student responses to the prompt. The histogram illustrates that the majority (55%) of students have a positive self-efficacy after completing CHEM 1. However, most students were not influenced (45%) or not interested (44%) in pursing chemistry as a career.

Student responses to their perceived self-efficacy in their abilities to do well in other chemistry courses and their desire to pursue a career in chemistry (Fig. 3) were categorized by letter grade and gender to identify potential trends in responses (Table 4). From the data collected, the majority of A (80%, n = 101) and B (61%, n = 79) students believed they would do well in future chemistry courses after taking CHEM 1. However, as the final letter grade decreases the student's self-efficacy also decreases, which is a trend also seen in the pre-post mATSI survey analysis. Students who received a letter grade of C accounted for 41% (n = 47) of those who believed they would not perform well in future chemistry courses. The students receiving failing letter grades of (D, F, FSA, or W) were more likely to have a negative self-efficacy in future performance, compared to higher performing students (Table 4). Based on the gender breakdown, 59% (n = 149) of female students believed that they would perform well in future chemistry courses after taking CHEM 1, while 48% (n = 91) of the male students indicated this. It is interesting to note that compared to female students (11%, n = 29), a higher percentage (more than double that of female students) of male students (26%, n = 49) indicated that CHEM 1 did not influence their self-efficacy in their ability to do well in other chemistry courses. Furthermore, a slightly higher percentage of female students (30%, n = 75) had low self-efficacy in their ability to perform well in a chemistry course after taking CHEM 1 compared to their male counterparts (26%, n = 49). These results suggest that performance in an introductory chemistry course plays a higher role in impacting the self-efficacy of female students compared to male students.

Table 4 Relationship between student demographics (i.e., gender and letter grades), self-efficacy, and interest in chemistry as a career

	A (n = 128)	B (n = 129)	C (n = 116)	D (n = 53)	F/FSA/W (n = 21)	Male (n = 189)	Female (n = 253)
As a result of taking this course…
I believe I can do well in chemistry courses	101 (80%)	79 (61%)	42 (36%)	18 (34%)	7 (33%)	91 (48%)	149 (59%)
I believe I cannot do well in chemistry courses	13 (10%)	27 (21%)	47 (41%)	15 (28%)	8 (38%)	49 (26%)	75 (30%)
This course has not influenced my belief in myself	14 (11%)	23 (18%)	27 (23%)	20 (38%)	6 (29%)	49 (26%)	29 (11%)
As a result of taking this course…
I am interested in pursuing a career in chemistry	17 (13%)	16 (12%)	15 (13%)	19 (36%)	4 (19%)	11 (6%)	39 (15%)
I am not interested in pursuing a career in chemistry	37 (29%)	53 (41%)	64 (55%)	24 (45%)	13 (62%)	93 (49%)	103 (41%)
This course has not influenced my desire to pursue a career in chemistry	74 (39%)	60 (47%)	37 (32%)	10 (19%)	4 (19%)	85 (45%)	111 (44%)

---

When observing the influence of CHEM 1 on pursuing a career in chemistry, more students in the A and B groups said CHEM 1 did not influence their desire to pursue a career in chemistry (39% and 47% respectively). However, majority of students who earned a C, D or F/FSA/W indicated they were not interested in pursuing chemistry as a career after taking CHEM 1 (55%, 45% and 62% respectively). Interestingly, 36% of students who earned a D in CHEM 1 indicated they were interested in pursuing a career in chemistry after taking CHEM 1, and this was the highest percentage across all participant groups. Further qualitative studies investigating why students want to pursue (or not) a career in chemistry should be carried out.

The results based on gender show that females were more interested in pursuing chemistry (15%, n = 39) as a career than their male counterparts (6%, n = 11) after taking CHEM 1. A higher percentage of male students (49%, n = 93) indicated they were not interested in pursuing a career in chemistry after taking CHEM 1 compared to female students (41%, n = 103), while a similar percentage of male (45%, n = 85) and female students (44%, n = 111) believed CHEM 1 did not influence their desire to pursue a career in chemistry. These results suggest there may be factors both in and out of the classroom that influence students’ desires to pursue careers in chemistry (i.e., a low final grade in CHEM 1 will not necessarily deter students’ interest in chemistry), and future studies can explore what these factors are. However, the results do highlight a need for intentional initiatives to take place inside and outside of the classroom to increase student interest in pursuing careers in chemistry.

RQ3: Is there a relationship between a student's (a) self-efficacy or (b) interest in pursuing chemistry (RQ2) and the factors that influence their perception of chemistry (RQ1)?

To answer RQ3, the responses from RQ1 and RQ2 were used to determine whether a relationship exists between an individual's self-efficacy or desire to pursue chemistry and the influential factors that affect their perception of chemistry. The factors that were focused on were course instructor and course structure due to the large percentage of students who selected both compared to the other factors. The students who selected the course structure or the course instructor were then categorized by responses to the questions from RQ2 – students’ self-efficacy and desire to pursue careers in chemistry (Fig. 4 and 5).

Fig. 4 Relationship between student self-efficacy toward chemistry and influential factors. Students who selected course instructor (CI) (left) and course structure (CS) (right) were separated into two groups to observe changes in their self-efficacy. The majority of CI students (66%) believe they will do well in future chemistry courses, while 39% of CS students had that same belief.

Fig. 5 Students who selected course instructor (CI) (left) and course structure (CS) (right) were separated into two groups to observe their desire to pursue chemistry as a career after completing CHEM 1. Most students in the CI group were not influenced by CHEM 1 to pursue chemistry (52%), while students in the CI group were not interested in chemistry after taking CHEM 1 (55%).

Of the 268 students who selected the course instructor as an influential factor, 66% (n = 178) ended the semester with increased self-efficacy in future chemistry course performance. However, only 39% (n = 64) of the 163 students who chose the course structure believed they would perform well in future chemistry courses. Within the same population of students who chose the course structure, 47% (n = 76) believed they would not perform well in future chemistry courses compared to those who chose the course instructor (17%, n = 45). A similar percentage of students in each category (17% for course instructor and 14% for course structure) exhibited no change in their self-efficacy as a result of taking the course (Fig. 4).

As for the influence of CHEM 1 on students’ interests in pursuing a chemistry career, 13% (n = 35) of the students who chose the course instructor and 9% (n = 14) of those who selected course structure indicated that the course made them interested in pursuing chemistry (Fig. 5). This is an interesting finding, and further investigation into what parts of the course specifically piqued the interest of these students should be carried out. After taking CHEM 1, 52% (n = 140) of students in the course instructor response group and 36% (n = 59) of the students in the course structure group believed the course did not influence their desire to pursue a career in chemistry. Conversely, the majority (55%, n = 90) of students who selected the course structure indicated that after taking CHEM 1, they were not interested in pursuing a career in chemistry, compared to 35% (n = 93) of students in the course instructor group. These results further highlight that students with lower self-efficacy and a more negative perception of chemistry are more likely to indicate their perceptions towards chemistry were impacted more by the course structure rather than the course instructor. It should be noted that even though this research question (RQ3) seeks to explore the relationship between factors that influence perception and students’ self-efficacy and interest in pursuing a career in chemistry, other variables, including students’ final grades, could potentially influence self-efficacy and career interest.

Limitations

The goal of this study was to determine the influential factors that affect students’ perception of chemistry and how these factors relate to letter grades and gender. We set out to acquire data from a large population of students taking CHEM 1 and combined students from different professors and off-sequence courses by means of comparison via the mATSI and post-survey demographics. Even though we found the data from both semesters as comparable, this combination could have impacted our results. In addition, even though CHEM 1 is team taught at this institution (i.e., similar syllabi, course coverage and the same number of exams with a combined final), content delivery and personality differences among the instructors could also have influenced students’ responses.

Student interpretation of survey questions could also have influenced the results of this study. Although course structure (including course content and exams) and course instructor were listed as influential factors, students may have different definitions for their reason for selecting one over the other or both factors. In addition, a student might struggle with deciphering between not influencedversusnot interested when selecting how CHEM 1 affected their desire to pursue chemistry as a career. To investigate this potential limitation within the survey, focus groups from student participants would be conducted in the future.

Gender identity is almost equally split between males and females amongst the total population. As mentioned previously, the breakdown of ethnicities is reflective of the institution in which this study had taken place where a large majority of students are of Caucasian ethnicity. However, we know this is not the case for all institutions, thus if this study were to be conducted at another institution the results could vary based on demographics. In addition, other influential factors may arise based on the population of students. We hope that this research will be conducted at other universities to learn more about what influences a student's perception of chemistry and how to increase the number of chemistry majors around the globe.

Conclusions

Based on the data collected, after completion of CHEM 1 most students who participated in this study had a more positive perception of chemistry. The most selected influential factors that contribute to a student's perception of chemistry were the course instructor and course structure (including course content and exams). When assessing perception groups, those who had a positive perception of chemistry were more likely to select the course instructor as an influential factor. However, respondents with a negative perception were more prone to choose the course structure as an influential factor in their perception of chemistry. This suggests instructors play an important role in students’ perceptions towards the course (Agwu and Nmadu, 2023; Collini et al., 2023). It also suggests that the way a course is structured may need to be examined as this also impacts students’ perceptions. Further studies should also be carried out to determine specific course content that may influence students’ perceptions.

Academically high-achieving students exhibit greater self-efficacy toward their success in future chemistry courses when addressing demographics and letter grades. It was also observed that majority of female students left CHEM 1 with a greater self-efficacy, compared to male students, while more male students believed CHEM 1 did not impact their self-efficacy compared to female students. This is an important finding because it suggests that the performance of female students in an introductory chemistry course plays a more significant role in the retention of these female students, compared to their male counterparts, which is similar to results obtained by Stone et al. (2018) and Allenbaugh and Herrera (2014). A decrease in self-efficacy towards future chemistry courses was observed for academically low-performing students (i.e., students who earned a C or lower letter grade). This finding suggests a continued evaluation of how we assess students in introductory chemistry courses.

The impact of CHEM 1 on the influence of pursuing chemistry as a career had less favorable outcomes. Although high performing students had a high self-efficacy towards their performance in future chemistry courses, CHEM 1 did not influence their desire to pursue chemistry as a career. Low-performing students exhibited low self-efficacy and no interest in chemistry as a career after taking CHEM 1. Regardless of their gender and performance in CHEM 1, only a small percentage of students were interested in pursuing chemistry as a career after completing the course. Further qualitative studies investigating students’ rationale for not wanting to pursue careers in chemistry should be carried out, as well as studies investigating the rationale for the student who do want to pursue careers in chemistry after taking CHEM 1. The results from these findings may provide insights on how to restructure the introductory chemistry experience for students to make it more palatable.

The results also highlight the difference between students who selected course instructor and course structure as influential factors toward their perception of chemistry. Most students who selected the course instructor as an influential factor had a greater self-efficacy toward their future performance in chemistry courses but were not influenced by the course to pursue chemistry as a career. In contrast, majority of students who selected the course structure as an influential factor were not interested in chemistry as a career and had a much lower self-efficacy toward their performance in future courses, compared to students who selected course instructor. The students who selected the course structure as a factor exhibited a decrease in self-efficacy toward their future performance in chemistry courses and an increase in students not interested in chemistry. The importance of course design on student self-efficacy and continuation in chemistry is evident.

In conclusion, the course instructor, design and structure appear to play an essential role in improving student academic performance, enhancing self-efficacy, and prolonging enrollment in chemistry. Future research endeavors will focus on what components of course structure (homework, exams, etc.) and the course instructor (attitude, organization, etc.) students relate the most to their overall perception of chemistry. We hope that this research serves as feedback for instructors to realize the importance of the course material and their behavior in students’ perception of chemistry and thus take great consideration in their course design and teaching pedagogy.

Author contributions

The specific contributions of the authors, Courtney D. Glenn (CDG) and Oluwatobi O. Odeleye (OOO), is as follows: conceptualization –– CDG and OOO; formal analysis – CDG; investigation – CDG and OOO; project administration – OOO; visualization – CDG, writing (original draft) – CDG; writing (review and editing) – CDG and OOO.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to respectfully thank Dr Michelle Richards-Babb for her assistance and knowledge during the construction of this research study. We also appreciate the input provided by the Odeleye Research Group members, particularly Mackenzie Border. The authors would also like to thank the participants, students and professors, for their time and willingness to participate in this study.

Notes and references

1. Agwu U. D. and Nmadu J., (2023), Students’ interactive engagement, academic achievement and self concept in chemistry: an evaluation of cooperative learning pedagogy, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.24, 688–705 10.1039/D2RP00148A.
2. Allenbaugh R. J. and Herrera K. M., (2014), Pre-assessment and peer tutoring as measures to improve performance in gateway general chemistry classes, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.15, 620–627 10.1039/C4RP00094C.
3. Astin A. W. and Astin H. S., (1992), Undergraduate Science Education: The Impact of Different College Environments on the Educational Pipeline in the Sciences, Final Report.
4. Aurah C., (2017), Investigating the Relationship between Science Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Gender, and Academic Achievement, among High School Students in Kenya, J. Educ. Pract.8, 146–153.
5. Avargil S., Kohen Z. and Dori Y. J., (2020), Trends and perceptions of choosing chemistry as a major and a career, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.21, 668–684 10.1039/C9RP00158A.
6. Bamiro A. O., (2015), Effects of Guided Discovery and Think-Pair-Share Strategies on Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Chemistry, SAGE Open5, 2158244014564754 DOI:10.1177/2158244014564754.
7. Boesdorfer S. B., Baldwin E. and Lieberum K. A., (2018), Emphasizing Learning: Using Standards-Based Grading in a Large Nonmajors’ General Chemistry Survey Course, J. Chem. Educ.95, 1291–1300 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00251.
8. Bolger N. and Kellaghan T., (1990), Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement, J. Educ. Meas.27, 165–174 DOI:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00740.x.
9. Bowen R. S. and Cooper M. M., (2022), Grading on a Curve as a Systemic Issue of Equity in Chemistry Education, J. Chem. Educ.99, 185–194 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00369.
10. Brett A. M., Smith M. L. and Huitt W. G., (n.d.), 5 Overview of the Affective Domain5.
11. Britner S. L. and Pajares F., (2006), Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach.43, 485–499 DOI:10.1002/tea.20131.
12. Campos K. R., Coleman P. J., Alvarez J. C., Dreher S. D., Garbaccio R. M., Terrett N. K., Tillyer R. D., Truppo M. D. and Parmee E. R., (2019), The importance of synthetic chemistry in the pharmaceutical industry, Science363, eaat0805 DOI:10.1126/science.aat0805.
13. Casey J. R., Supriya K., Shaked S., Caram J. R., Russell A. and Courey A. J., (2023), Participation in a High-Structure General Chemistry Course Increases Student Sense of Belonging and Persistence to Organic Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ.100, 2860–2872 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c01253.
14. Chen X., (n.d.) STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.
15. Collini M. A., Rocha L. A., Ford J. E., Weber R. and Atkinson M. B., (2023), Characterizing and identifying influences on undergraduates’ attitudes towards organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.24, 723–739 10.1039/D2RP00256F.
16. Consumer Information|WVU Morgantown Student Body Diversity [WWW Document], (n.d.), https://consumerinformation.wvu.edu/wvu-morgantown-student-body-diversity (accessed 2.28.24).
17. Current Term Enrollment Estimates|National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [WWW Document], (n.d.), https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/ (accessed 12.11.23).
18. DeMars C. E., (1998), Gender Differences in Mathematics and Science on a High School Proficiency Exam: The Role of Response Format, Appl. Meas. Educ.11, 279–299 DOI:10.1207/s15324818ame1103_4.
19. Dunn P. J., (2012), The importance of Green Chemistry in Process Research and Development, Chem. Soc. Rev.41, 1452–1461 10.1039/C1CS15041C.
20. Estrada M., Hernandez P. R. and Schultz P. W., (2018), A Longitudinal Study of How Quality Mentorship and Research Experience Integrate Underrepresented Minorities into STEM Careers, CBE – Life Sci. Educ.17, ar9 DOI:10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066.
21. Flaherty A. A., (2020), A review of affective chemistry education research and its implications for future research, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.21, 698–713 10.1039/C9RP00200F.
22. Gonyea R. M., Kish K. A., Muthiah R. N. and Thomas A. D., (2003), College Student Experiences, Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning, Bloomington, IN.
23. Graham M. J., Frederick J., Byars-Winston A., Hunter A.-B. and Handelsman J., (2013), Increasing persistence of college students in STEM, Science341, 1455–1456 DOI:10.1126/science.1240487.
24. Grunert M. L. and Bodner G. M., (2011), Finding fulfillment: women's self-efficacy beliefs and career choices in chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.12, 420–426 10.1039/C1RP90050A.
25. Hazel E., Logan P. and Gallagher P., (1997), Equitable assessment of students in physics: importance of gender and language background, Int. J. Sci. Educ.19, 381–392 DOI:10.1080/0950069970190402.
26. Hu L. and Bentler P. M., (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J.6, 1–55 DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118.
27. Keşan C. and Kaya D., (2018), Mathematics and Science Self-Efficacy Resources as the Predictor of Academic Success, Math. Sci. Self-Effic. Resour. Predict. Acad. Success10, 45–58.
28. Komperda R., Pentecost T. C. and Barbera J., (2018), Moving beyond Alpha: A Primer on Alternative Sources of Single-Administration Reliability Evidence for Quantitative Chemistry Education Research, J. Chem. Educ.95, 1477–1491 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00220.
29. Kuh G. D. and Hu S., (2001), The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s, Rev. High. Educ. J. Assoc. Study High. Educ.24, 309–332 DOI:10.1353/rhe.2001.0005.
30. Leong E., Mercer A., Danczak S. M., Kyne S. H. and Thompson C. D., (2021), The transition to first year chemistry: student, secondary and tertiary educator's perceptions of student preparedness, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.22, 923–947 10.1039/D1RP00068C.
31. Lewis S. E., (2014), Investigating the Longitudinal Impact of a Successful Reform in General Chemistry on Student Enrollment and Academic Performance, J. Chem. Educ.91, 2037–2044 DOI:10.1021/ed500404q.
32. Linley J. L., Renn K. A. and Woodford M. R., (2018), Examining the ecological systems of LGBTQ stem majors, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.24, 1–16 DOI:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2017018836.
33. Linnenbrink-Garcia L., Wormington S. V., Snyder K. E., Riggsbee J., Perez T., Ben-Eliyahu A. and Hill N. E., (2018), Multiple pathways to success: An examination of integrative motivational profiles among upper elementary and college students, J. Educ. Psychol.110, 1026–1048 DOI:10.1037/edu0000245.
34. Lopez F. G., Lent R. W., Brown S. D. and Gore P. A., (1997), Role of social–cognitive expectations in high school students’ mathematics-related interest and performance, J. Couns. Psychol.44, 44–52 DOI:10.1037/0022-0167.44.1.44.
35. Lyons T., (2006), Different Countries, Same Science Classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words, Int. J. Sci. Educ.28, 591–613 DOI:10.1080/09500690500339621.
36. Maltese A. V. and Tai R. H., (2011), Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students, Sci. Educ.95, 877–907 DOI:10.1002/sce.20441.
37. McInnis C., James R. and Hartley R., (2000), Trends in the First Year Experience in Australia, University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
38. McKnelly K. J., Howitz W. J., Thane T. A. and Link R. D., (2023), Specifications Grading at Scale: Improved Letter Grades and Grading-Related Interactions in a Course with over 1,000 Students, J. Chem. Educ.100, 3179–3193 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00740.
39. Multon K. D., Brown S. D. and Lent R. W., (1991), Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation, J. Couns. Psychol.38, 30–38 DOI:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30.
40. Pajares F. and Miller M. D., (1994), Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis, J. Educ. Psychol.86, 193–203 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193.
41. Pintrich P. R. and de Groot E. V., (1990), Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, J. Educ. Psychol.82, 33–40 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.
42. Rask K., (2010), Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences, Econ. Educ. Rev.29, 892–900.
43. Reinhold S., Holzberger D. and Seidel T., (2018), Encouraging a career in science: a research review of secondary schools’ effects on students’ STEM orientation, Stud. Sci. Educ.54, 69–103 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2018.1442900.
44. Rosa V., States N. E., Corrales A., Nguyen Y. and Atkinson M. B., (2022), Relevance and equity: should stoichiometry be the foundation of introductory chemistry courses? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.23, 662–685 10.1039/D1RP00333J.
45. Self-Efficacy Teaching Tip Sheet [WWW Document], (n.d.), https://www.apa.org, https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/self-efficacy (accessed 12.10.23).
46. Shah L., Fatima A., Syed A. and Glasser E., (2022), Investigating the Impact of Assessment Practices on the Performance of Students Perceived to Be at Risk of Failure in Second-Semester General Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ.99, 14–24 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01463.
47. Sikder A., Pearce A. K., Parkinson S. J., Napier R. and O’Reilly R. K., (2021), Recent Trends in Advanced Polymer Materials in Agriculture Related Applications, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater.3, 1203–1217 DOI:10.1021/acsapm.0c00982.
48. Singh K., Granville M. and Dika S., (2002), Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement, J. Educ. Res.95, 323–332 DOI:10.1080/00220670209596607.
49. Stanger-Hall K. F., (2012), Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes, CBE – Life Sci. Educ.11, 294–306 DOI:10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100.
50. Stone K., Shaner S. and Fendrick C., (2018), Improving the Success of First Term General Chemistry Students at a Liberal Arts Institution, Educ. Sci.8, 5 DOI:10.3390/educsci8010005.
51. Tenaw Y. A., (2013), Relationship between self-efficacy, academic achievement and gender in analytical chemistry at Debre Markos College of Teacher Education, Afr. J. Chem. Educ.3, 3–28.
52. Tyson W., Lee R., Borman K. M. and Hanson M. A., (2007), Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment, J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk12, 243–270 DOI:10.1080/10824660701601266.
53. Venville G., Rennie L., Hanbury C. and Longnecker N., (2013), Scientists Reflect on Why They Chose to Study Science, Res. Sci. Educ.43, 2207–2233 DOI:10.1007/s11165-013-9352-3.
54. Vincent-Ruz P., Meyer T., Roe S. G. and Schunn C. D., (2020), Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of POGIL in a Large-Enrollment General Chemistry Course, J. Chem. Educ.97, 1228–1238 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01052.
55. Wang C., Cavanagh A. J., Bauer M., Reeves P. M., Gill J. C., Chen X., Hanauer D. I. and Graham M. J., (2021), A Framework of College Student Buy-in to Evidence-Based Teaching Practices in STEM: The Roles of Trust and Growth Mindset, CBE – Life Sci. Educ.20, ar54 DOI:10.1187/cbe.20-08-0185.
56. Ware N. C., Steckler N. A. and Leserman J., (1985), Undergraduate women: Who chooses a science major? J. High. Educ.56, 73–84 DOI:10.2307/1981723.
57. Watkins J. and Mazur E., (2013), Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 36–41.
58. Weinburgh M. and Steele D., (2000), The Modified Attitudes toward Science Inventory: Developing an Instrument to Be Used with Fifth Grade Urban Students, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.6 DOI:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v6.i1.50.
59. White K. N., Vincent-Layton K. and Villarreal B., (2021), Equitable and Inclusive Practices Designed to Reduce Equity Gaps in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses, J. Chem. Educ.98, 330–339 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01094.
60. Wright S. L., Jenkins-Guarnieri M. A. and Murdock J. L., (2013), Career Development Among First-Year College Students: College Self-Efficacy, Student Persistence, and Academic Success, J. Career Dev.40, 292–310 DOI:10.1177/0894845312455509.
61. Wu F. and Teets T. S., (2021), Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Student Engagement in a General Chemistry Course, J. Chem. Educ.98, 3633–3642 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00665.
62. Zusho A., Pintrich P. R. and Coppola B., (2003), Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ.25, 1081–1094 DOI:10.1080/0950069032000052207.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00008k

---