 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Trinity
College S.I. Pilot Program (Chemistry 111 & 112) Fall
2001 & Spring 2002 Participants
Maria
Parr, Assistant Professor, Chemistry Why start this
academic support program?
In the last three years, close to one fifth
of students taking the introductory chemistry course have earned D’s
and F’s or have withdrawn from the course.
Over three quarters of those who earned DFWs then dropped
out of chemistry, preventing them from going into fields such as
medicine. A disproportionately
high percentage of the students who dropped out of chemistry were
students of color (about half of the students who did not go on in
chemistry were students of color, although these students made up far
less than half of the students enrolled in the introductory chem.
courses). We initiated this pilot (1) to increase the rates of all students earning A’s, B’s, and C’s, (2) to decrease the proportion of students of color earning D’s, F’s, and W’s, (3) to increase persistence rates in chemistry, and ultimately (4) to increase numbers of chemistry majors and to increase numbers of students (especially students of color) who go on to grad school and professions in the sciences. Description of
SI (Supplemental Instruction) Pilot Program in Chemistry
Several features distinguish the S.I. program from other forms of academic support: (1) It is not (and is not perceived to be) remedial, so students come to excel, not because they feel deficient (2) It is peer-led, highly interactive, and subject-specific. Students focus on how to learn, not just what to learn, and they are repeatedly asked to explain their reasoning behind answers and to teach each other. (3) The SI leader attends all class sessions for the course for which s/he is leading SI sessions so sessions are directly linked to current and accurate class information and the professor’s teaching style. (4)
The SI leader not only goes through a training workshop at
the beginning of the semester but also is supervised throughout the
semester and given frequent feedback on his/her sessions, as might a
beginning teacher in a teacher training program. In the Fall 2001 pilot program, we offered Supplemental Instruction in one of three introductory level chemistry courses. 37 students were initially registered for this course. 36 students completed the course. In the Spring 2002 pilot, we offered S.I. in one of two introductory chemistry courses. 27 of 27 students completed the course. Results §
In the Fall semester (Chem 111), almost as many students
participated in SI (17 of 37) as did not (20 of 37), but twice as
many students of color participated in the SI group as in the non-SI
group (8 vs. 4). In the spring semester (Chem
112), 66.7% (18 of 27) of the students participated in SI, and
almost four times as many students of color participated in the
SI group than did not (7 vs. 2). §
In the Fall, of the SI group as a whole (all races), 100%
earned A’s, B’s and C’s.
Approximately a quarter (23.5%) earned A’s, a little
over a half (52.9%) earned B’s, about a quarter (23.5%) earned
C’s, and none earned D’s, F’s, or W’s.
Of the non-SI group, about the same proportion earned C’s [25%]
but significantly fewer earned B’s [40%], half as many [10%] earned
A’s, and 25% earned D’s, F’s, and W’s.
The mean final course grade for SI students (all races) was 0.6
grade points higher than the mean final course grade for non-SI
students. [See Graph 1: “Grade
Distribution Chem 111, F’01, Parr, All Students”] Of the 8 students of color in the SI group, all
earned A’s, B’s, or C’s (zero D’s, F’s, or W’s:
our goal). Of the 4
students of color in the non-SI group, grades were B’s, C’s, D’s,
and F’s, so no A’s and 50% D’s and F’s.
The mean final course grade for SI students of color (2.63) was 0.96
grade points higher than the mean final course grade for non-SI
students of color (1.67) in this course. [See Graph 2:
“Grade Distribution Chem 111, F’01, Parr, Students of
Color”] Grade distribution, Chem 111,
Parr section, SI compared to non-SI students, Fall 2001:
In the spring, of
the SI group as a whole (all races), 100% earned A’s, B’s and
C’s. [0% earned
DFWs.] 83.4% earned
A's and B's (& only 16.7% earned C's) [even better than the
76.4% A's & B's and 23.5% C's in the SI group in the fall]; of the
non-SI group, 55.5% earned A's & B's while 44.4% earned C's and
D's [almost the same proportion as in the fall non-SI group]. As in the fall, the mean final course grade for SI students
was a little over one half GPA point higher than the mean final
course grade for the non-SI group (grade point average for SI students:
3.055; grade point
average for non-SI students: 2.51). That may
not sound like much, but that's the difference between a B- and a C+.
[See Graph 5: “Grade
Distribution Chem 112, S’02, Parr, All Students”]
Of the 7 students of
color in the SI group, all earned A's, B's, or C's (zero D's,
F's, or W's: our goal). Although
there was not much difference in the spring between the two groups of
students of color, the mean final grade was even higher in the spring
for all students of color in this course. [See Graph 6:
“Grade Distribution Chem 112, S’02, Parr, Students of
Color”] Also, of the 18 students who participated in SI in the
spring, 77.8% (14 of the 18) either saw an improvement in their grade
over first semester, or stayed the same.
(11 of the 18 were new to SI.)
Of the 6 who participated in SI in the fall but discontinued in
the spring because no SI was provided with their change of instructor,
all but one (83.3%) continued to profit in the spring with the
same or higher final grade. Grade distribution, Chem 112, Parr section, SI compared to
non-SI students, Spring 2002:
§
Comparing all sections of Chem 111 (103 students total),
the DFW rate for Chem 111 this fall with the new SI program
significantly decreased to 10.7% in contrast to the last three fall
semesters when the DFW rate verged on 18% (18.7% in Fall ’98, 17.4% in
Fall ’99, 18.6% in Fall ’00). [See
Graph 3: “Grade
Distribution Chem 111, F’01, All Sections, All Students” and Graph
4: “Grade Distribution
Chem 111, F’01, All Sections, Students of Color”] And, in contrast to the
three previous fall semesters when approximately half of those students
earning the DFWs were students of color (53% in Fall ’98, 53% in Fall
’99, 46% in Fall ’00), the proportion of students of color
(all sections) earning DFWs this fall decreased to 18.2%.
Fall DFW Rates of Students in “Gateway” Chem
111 (All sections)
Compared to the last two springs, the proportion of students of color earning DFWs this spring decreased to 25% (vs. 50% in S’00, 33.3% in S’01). DFW Rates of Students in “Gateway” Chem 112 (All sections)
§
Qualitative results:
Because the S.I. sessions press students to explain how
they came to an answer and constantly placed them in active roles,
students became more resourceful and self-sufficient.
Many said they read their books more closely and learned to ask
probing questions. Regular
attendance at the S.I. sessions, started early in the semester, led to
earlier and more thorough preparation of problem sets, and therefore for
most, greater speed and accuracy on quizzes and tests.
Because the sessions are highly interactive, participants
developed relationships with other students and started to teach each
other, learning even more in the process.
Furthermore, many carried their learning outside the session into
the residence halls and formed additional study partnerships on their
own. Students said their understanding of the material and confidence in mastering new concepts increased considerably. Perhaps in part because of their successes, course evaluations went up. As signs that the experience was highly valued by students, they repeatedly tried to “hoard” the S.I. leader and session as if they had found a hidden treasure, and they repeatedly asked if they could have a S.I. leader for their spring science courses. The S.I. leader, a bio major who plans to go into teaching, said that this opportunity not only helped her effectively review the material for upcoming graduate board exams but also substantially helped her learn more interactive and productive methods of leading discussion and helping students to become more successful in their mastery of chemistry. An IDP student who lives off campus, she also said that being an S.I. leader made her feel for the first time like a real part of the Trinity and Chemistry Department communities. Maria Parr, the instructor for the course for which we built our pilot program, said that it made her job easier as well: grading took a little less time because more students could show understanding of material more clearly and thoroughly, and students seemed to evaluate the course even more positively, perhaps in part because they felt stronger control of the material. She also found that the program helped her develop as an instructor: she valued the feedback of the supervisor sitting in on her class and she planned to add more innovations as she developed the course further. Lisa Nestor, the lab coordinator and co-supervisor of the S.I. sessions, found that the program gave her a more complete perspective on the class and closer connection with the students. Graph
1:
Graph 2:
Graph
3:
Graph
4:
Graph
5:
Graph
6:
Graph
7:
Gr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
