STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

OverviewOverview

• Background• Implementation of support initiative• Methodology• Evaluation• Conclusions

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

A proactive intervention to A proactive intervention to support first year engineering support first year engineering

students with non-typical students with non-typical mathematics backgroundsmathematics backgrounds

Dr Ria Symonds – University of Nottingham

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

BackgroundBackground• Engineering mathematics intake (~600 students) is dominated

by students entering with a recent good pass at GCE A-level

• Previously a parallel provision for about 20-40 students has also been available for students with more non-typical backgrounds

• Nomination via engineering tutors• Availability of bi-weekly drop in sessions

• Mathematical confidence, engagement and attainment of this cohort has been disappointing

• Support initiative Dual module approach

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Revised provision – outline objectivesRevised provision – outline objectives• Change to a single provision

• Provide targeted support to enhance student learning / transition in tandem to main Engineering Mathematics module

• Incorporate a ‘group tutorial’ based support

• Incorporate ‘ guided learning’ to provide enhancement to student personal study time ( pre-requisites and underpinning )

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

ImplementationImplementation• Liaison with engineering departments

• Selection of Postgraduate Student Teachers (PST’s)• Previous experience crucial• Training session

• Development of Tutorial support• Diagnostic Test• VLE• Tutorial Sheets• Delivery and monitoring

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Methodology - barriersMethodology - barriers• Engineering departments were asked to nominate a small

group of students to benefit from the support 39 students

• Limited data for intake qualifications

• Late arrival of nominations from engineering

• Late registration of some students – e-mail problems

• ‘Missed’ induction week / diagnostic test

• Tutorials reduced to fortnightly in Spring Semester

• Approx half the nominated students attended sessions

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

EvaluationEvaluation• Engaged motivated students?

• Comparison of marks from three groups:

• Proactive intervention students – received support

• Proactive intervention students – did not receive support

• Main cohort

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation – quantitativeEvaluation – quantitativeAUTUMN SEMESTER

No Exam Hard Fail (<30%) Soft Fail(>=30%, <40%)

Pass(>40%)

Nominated PI attendees (17) 2 2 1 12

Nominated PI non-attendees (17) 0 0 3 14

Other EngineeringStudents (593)

17(2.9%)

28 (4.7%)

45 (7.6%)

503(84.8%)

SPRING SEMESTER

No Exam Hard Fail (<30%) Soft Fail(>=30%, <40%)

Pass(>40%)

Nominated PI attendees (15) 2 3 2 8

Nominated PI non-attendees (14) 0 1 3 10

Other EngineeringStudents (561)

7(1.2%)

36(6.4%)

39(7.0%)

479(85.4%)

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation – quantitativeEvaluation – quantitativeAUTUMN SEMESTER

No Exam Hard Fail (<30%) Soft Fail(>=30%, <40%)

Pass(>40%)

Nominated PI attendees (17) 2 2 1 12

Nominated PI non-attendees (17) 0 0 3 14

Other EngineeringStudents (593)

17(2.9%)

28 (4.7%)

45 (7.6%)

503(84.8%)

SPRING SEMESTER

No Exam Hard Fail (<30%) Soft Fail(>=30%, <40%)

Pass(>40%)

Nominated PI attendees (15) 2 3 2 8

Nominated PI non-attendees (14) 0 1 3 10

Other EngineeringStudents (561)

7(1.2%)

36(6.4%)

39(7.0%)

479(85.4%)

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation – quantitativeEvaluation – quantitativeAutumn: Group

(Number of students) Coursework (%) Exam (%) Overall (%)

PI attendees (15)66.7 49 52.8

PI non-attendees (17)80.8 46 54.2

Others (530) 79 52.3 57.7

Spring: Group(Number of students) Coursework (%) Exam (%) Overall (%)

PI attendees (13) 68.7 42.1 47.8

PI non-attendees (17) 64.9 47.9 51.4

Others (500) 66.3 57 58.9

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation - qualitativeEvaluation - qualitative• Questionnaire handed out during the 1st and 10th teaching

week of term.

– How do the tutorials compare to your normal maths lecture/problem classes?

“I get more attention and develop my maths.”

“[The tutorials] tend to focus on the basics more before moving onto the advanced topics.”

“They offer more explanation and time spent on a one to one basis.”

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation - qualitativeEvaluation - qualitative• Questionnaire handed out during the 1st and 10th teaching

week of term.

– What aspects of the tutorials did you find particularly useful?

“Exercises and explanation of each topic.”

“The ability to ask questions too uncomfortable to ask the lecturer. Slower pace and firmer grounding of the points. Help available!”

“Recapping in detail bits that have seemed vague in class.”“Being able to discuss the problem.”

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

Evaluation - qualitativeEvaluation - qualitative• Tutor feedback:

“Experience in teaching and guiding students. Satisfaction of teaching someone something new and them understanding it and seeing them enjoy what they are doing.”

“I had a good rapport with my working group and an opportunity to really help students that needed it”

“I feel more confident about leading tutorials in the future. It was also good getting to know the students… I really enjoyed being able to tailor the sessions to their needs.”

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

ConclusionsConclusions• Provision established

• Operational elements identified for enhancement

• Increased engagement for PSTs in managing and delivering support to Engineering students

• Effective transition to undergraduate learning in mathematics

• Feedback from students encouraging

Acknowledgement: Development work was supported by the Collaborative Practice Transfer Fund, HE STEM Programme.

STEM Seminar – 23rd November 2011

ConclusionsConclusions• However……

– ENGAGEMENT with the support could be improved.

– Several factors that could have contributed to this.

– Further activity needed to help motivate such students?

Acknowledgement: Development work was supported by the Collaborative Practice Transfer Fund, HE STEM Programme.