Examines mathematical fluency in developmental general chemistry, suggesting calculator-free activities may enhance learning.
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Traditional paper and pencil activities are valuable for assessing, predicting, and improving student performance in general chemistry, particularly when related to mathematical automaticity─what students can do without a calculator─because graders can gain insight into student understanding. This study tracks the changes in the mathematical fluency of 725 students taking a developmental general chemistry course in the fall of 2025. Two instructors taught the course using similar teaching strategies including paper and pencil exams. One instructor implemented a calculator-free exam on stoichiometry, while the other allowed calculators on all exams and activities. Students in the calculator-free condition also participated in calculator-free recitation sections and calculator-free homework and received practice exams that did not require calculators. The validated Math Up Skills Test (MUST) was administered to both groups on the first day of the course and again during the 11th week after the stoichiometry exam. Students in both conditions started and ended the course with concerning levels of mathematical automaticity. However, both treatment and comparison conditions improved substantially, showing average MUST score gains of 13–14 percentage points (+2.7 item improvement). The calculator-free group outperformed the comparison group on several MUST items at a statistically significant level, particularly for items related to course topics. Results show that the use of mathematical concepts within the developmental general chemistry course enhances mathematical fluency regardless of the calculator use condition, although calculator-free activities may provide small benefits. It is recommended that the reader have a copy of the MUST available to appreciate the context of this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCarren et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: