Supplemental Supplemental Instruction and Instruction and

Academic Academic SupportSupport

F. Kim Wilcox, Ph.D.F. Kim Wilcox, Ph.D.

Why weneed academic

support? Graduation rates of students

Facilitate learning

Projected Graduation Rates

35.7%35.7%First InstitutionFirst Institution1,000,0001,000,000

21.4%21.4%Subsequent InstitutionSubsequent Institution600,000600,000

Vincent Tinto, Leaving College, 1987

42.9%42.9%DropoutDropout1,200,0001,200,000

Supplemental InstructionSupplemental InstructionMeat and PotatoesMeat and Potatoes

Student facilitated review Student facilitated review sessionssessions

Assigned to historically difficult Assigned to historically difficult academic coursesacademic courses

Offered to all enrolled studentsOffered to all enrolled students Regularly scheduled, out-of-Regularly scheduled, out-of-

class, voluntary, and class, voluntary, and anonymousanonymous

Key persons involved with the SI program

SI LeaderSI Leader Faculty MemberFaculty Member SI SupervisorSI Supervisor StudentsStudents

The History of Academic The History of Academic Support Support

The Dark AgesThe Dark Ages

The History of Academic The History of Academic Support Support

The Dark AgesThe Dark Ages

•Who are the high risk students?Who are the high risk students?

•Who is most likely to drop out?Who is most likely to drop out?

•How do you identify them?How do you identify them?

•Where are they located on campus?Where are they located on campus?

•How do you diagnose their needs?How do you diagnose their needs?

Identifying the Identifying the High Risk StudentHigh Risk Student

Standardized test scoresStandardized test scores Self-referral by the studentSelf-referral by the student In-house screening or diagnostic In-house screening or diagnostic

testingtesting High school course performanceHigh school course performance

Traditional Traditional Programs Programs for High- for High- Risk Risk StudentsStudents

Individual tutoring/SIIndividual tutoring/SI Study skill coursesStudy skill courses Remedial subject coursesRemedial subject courses WorkshopsWorkshops Counseling sessionsCounseling sessions

Challenges Challenges withwith

Traditional Traditional ApproachesApproaches

Inaccurate/incomp-Inaccurate/incomp-lete identification of lete identification of “high risk” students“high risk” students

Expensive to provide Expensive to provide developmental developmental education courses, education courses, testing, etc..testing, etc..

Presumes time to Presumes time to identify/remediateidentify/remediate

Promotes remedial Promotes remedial imageimage

Difficult to evaluate Difficult to evaluate effectivenesseffectiveness

Root Problems to Root Problems to OvercomeOvercome

Students' pragmatic approach to learning leads to passiveness.

In the presence of a recognized authority we become silent.

We must avoid already failed processes.

Repeating Failed Repeating Failed ProcessesProcesses

Tell them. Tell them again. Tell them again more slowly. Give them something shiny

with which to play.

Breaking the Dependency Breaking the Dependency CycleCycle

Tell them.Tell them.

Get them to tell Get them to tell each other.each other.

Get them to tell Get them to tell you.you.

The Learning CurveGordon Allport, 1948

Learning is a function of time on task.Learning is a function of resources.Learning is a function of positive experiences.

Students Construct Knowledge Students Construct Knowledge Through a Process of . . .Through a Process of . . .

Social Social InteractionInteraction

ExplorationExplorationApplicationApplication

Academic support Academic support should and should not . should and should not .

. .. .

Academic support should not involve compromising or watering down course content.

Academic support should help students become independent learners.

Academic support Academic support persons persons must notmust not . . . . . .

Spoonfeed

Reteach

Give all the answers

Dominate the session

Chinese ProverbChinese Proverb

Tell me, and I forgetShow me, and I

rememberInvolve me, and I

understand

SI ResearchSI Research SI participants earn higher SI participants earn higher

mean final course grades.mean final course grades. SI participants receive lower SI participants receive lower

rates of D, F, and W grades.rates of D, F, and W grades. SI participants persist SI participants persist

(reenroll and graduate) at (reenroll and graduate) at higher rates.higher rates.

Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by Institution TypeSeparated by Institution Type

2.78

2.452.63

2.18

2.6

2.18

2.6

2.15

2.88

2.38

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Me

an

Fin

al

Gra

de

s

UMKC All Institutions 2 Year Public 4 Year Public 4 Year Private

Institution Type

SI

Non-SI

National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

Percent of A& B Final Course GradesPercent of A& B Final Course GradesData separated by institutional typeData separated by institutional type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Non-SI

SI

All Colleges 2 Yr. Public 2 Yr. Private 4 Yr. Public 4 Year PrivateAll Colleges 2 Yr. Public 2 Yr. Private 4 Yr. Public 4 Year Private n=4,945 n=931 n=20 n= 3,001 n=993

35.9% 32.4% 38.9% 35.4% 43.2%35.9% 32.4% 38.9% 35.4% 43.2% 46.8% 50.2% 53.1% 44.8% 52.1%46.8% 50.2% 53.1% 44.8% 52.1%

Non-SINon-SISISI

SI National Field Data: N=270 Institutions, 4,945 SI Courses, 505,738 Students. Level of significance of difference: 0.01 using chi-square test.

Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by Institution and Non-SI Participants Separated by Institution

TypeType

18.07%

30.61%

19.11%

35.13%

21.91%

39.23%

20.02%

36.24%

12.08%

26.89%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

DF

W R

ate

s

UMKC All Institutions 2 Year Public 4 Year Public 4 Year Private

Institution Type

SI

Non-SI

National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by DisciplineSeparated by Discipline

2.63

2.18

2.59

2.17

2.83

2.31

2.46

2.21

2.66

2.16

2.81

2.31

2.58

2.16

2.96

2.822.67

2.09

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Me

an

Fin

al

Gra

de

s

All NaturalScience

SocialScience

Math Humanities Business Computer Health Other

Discipline

SI

Non-SI

National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by Disciplineand Non-SI Participants Separated by Discipline

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

DFW Rate

Discipline

SI 19.11% 20.70% 14.41% 24.96% 16.01% 20.12% 30.31% 17.07% 14.88%

Non-SI 35.13% 35.80% 32.69% 35.01% 34.56% 34.69% 48.62% 20.27% 33.36%

AllNatural Science

Social Science

Math Humanities Business Computer Health Other

National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

Academic Disciplines Using Supplemental Academic Disciplines Using Supplemental InstructionInstruction

53.24%

19.94%

8.38%

5.88%

8.08%2.39%

0.60%1.50%

Natural Sciences

Humanities

Social Sciences

Math

Business

Computer Science

Heatlth

Other

National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

Percent of SI ParticipationPercent of SI ParticipationDiffering Levels of Prior Differing Levels of Prior

AchievementAchievement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

SI Participants 32.9% 27.6% 30.7%

Top QuartileMiddle Two

QuartilesBottom Quartiles

Mean Final Course GradesMean Final Course GradesDiffering Levels of Prior Differing Levels of Prior

AchievementAchievement

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Non-SI Participants 2.83 2.28 1.77

SI Participants 3.29 2.67 2.10

Top QuartileMiddle Two

QuartilesBottom Quartiles

Percent Enrollment Following Percent Enrollment Following Term Differing Levels of Prior Term Differing Levels of Prior

AchievementAchievement

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Non-SI Participants 93.1% 79.0% 77.9%

SI Participants 92.9% 90.5% 85.6%

Top QuartileMiddle Two

QuartilesBottom Quartiles

Persistence Rates of UMKC Persistence Rates of UMKC StudentsStudents

Percent Reenrolled/Graduated One Year Percent Reenrolled/Graduated One Year LaterLater

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Non-SI Participants 61.7% 66.4% 68.9% 62.3% 63.5% 65.9% 65.5%

SI Participants 73.1% 76.0% 75.4% 79.2% 78.6% 76.7% 80.0%

Fall 89 Fall 90 Fall 91 Fall 92 Fall 93 Fall 94 Fall 95

Graduation Rates of UMKC Graduation Rates of UMKC StudentsStudents

Cumulative Graduation Rate at 4 Time Cumulative Graduation Rate at 4 Time PeriodsPeriods

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Non-SI Participants 12.3% 21.1% 27.4% 30.3%

SI Participants 15.9% 31.3% 38.1% 46.1%

By Fall 1993 By Fall 1994 By Fall 1995 By Fall 1996

Percent of SI ParticipationPercent of SI ParticipationUMKC UMKC

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

SI Participants 32.3 40.9 43.1 34.1 42.6 39.1 44.3 34.1 29.9 30.5 34.1 39.0 37.0 38.1 36.3 40.0 44.9

FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97

Motivation and Academic Motivation and Academic AchievementAchievement

Winter 1996 (N = 1,593 Students)Winter 1996 (N = 1,593 Students)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Non-SI Participants 2.38

Non-SI Motivational 2.16

SI Participants 2.78

Final Course Grade