Date post: | 27-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | elijah-rogers |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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