Mathematics Support Centres: The need for early and contextualised supports.

Donal Healy Ciaran O’Sullivan Paul Robinson

Irish Maths Support Network 5th Irish Workshop on Maths Learning and Support Centres

4 th Feb, 2011 NUIG. 

Talk Structure:

Insights on timing and nature of supports and interventions from report reviewing first year student progression on

certificate engineering students over a 6 year period. In particular:

Dialogue arising from such an examination of the effectiveness of student supports informing a major structural change in

engineering course provision.

Key finding: importance of early and contextualised supports

Implications (in the wider context of retention debate) for Maths Support Centres:

Directly connecting to the lecture/tutorial room experience

Catalysts for enhancing student involvement with learning through the building of learning communities.

ELSU Project Report: Background Information.

For ELSU For ELSU to be successful it would need to :to be successful it would need to : be aimed at be aimed at first yearfirst year full-time engineering students full-time engineering students be highly be highly structuredstructured have have extended intensive contactextended intensive contact with students who are most with students who are most

likely to drop out, likely to drop out, bebe interlockedinterlocked with other programs and services, with other programs and services, have a have a strategy of engagementstrategy of engagement using qualified staff using qualified staff focus on the focus on the affectiveaffective andand cognitivecognitive needs of the student as needs of the student as

suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. be a be a catalyst for changescatalyst for changes in institutional culture and student in institutional culture and student

attitudes regarding completion of programmes. attitudes regarding completion of programmes.

For ELSU For ELSU to be successful it would need to :to be successful it would need to : be aimed at be aimed at first yearfirst year full-time engineering students full-time engineering students be highly be highly structuredstructured have have extended intensive contactextended intensive contact with students who are most with students who are most

likely to drop out, likely to drop out, bebe interlockedinterlocked with other programs and services, with other programs and services, have a have a strategy of engagementstrategy of engagement using qualified staff using qualified staff focus on the focus on the affectiveaffective andand cognitivecognitive needs of the student as needs of the student as

suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. be a be a catalyst for changescatalyst for changes in institutional culture and student in institutional culture and student

attitudes regarding completion of programmes. attitudes regarding completion of programmes.

* Levitz, R., Lee, N & Richter, B.J., 1999, New Directions for Higher Education 108:31-49

Tinto V.; 1993, "Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition" ( 2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

ELSU Project Report: Background Information.

Academic year

commencing

September:

Higher Certificate in Electronic Engineering

Higher Certificate in Mechanical

Engineering, Electro-

Mechanical Systems

Higher Certificate in Mechanical Engineering

Ordinary Degree in Mechanical Engineering School

2003 71 13 90   174

2004 62 14 70   146

2005 33 27 54   114

2006 50 30 49 23 152

2007 30 30 43 28 131

2008 41 26 67 16 150

Partitioning of Students by Mathematics and Physics

Summary description of partition categoryGroup 1 C (OLC) grade or higher in Maths and studied LC

PhysicsGroup 2 C (OLC) grade or higher in Maths and didn't study

LC PhysicsGroup 3 D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics

Group 4 D (OLC) Maths and didn't study LC Physics

Group 5 Not Trackable

2003-2004 First Year cohort in Higher Certificates in School of Engineering

% in each partition

Commencing first year

in September

of:

C grade or higher in

(OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics

C grade or higher in

Maths and didn't

study LC Physics

D (OLC) Maths and studied LC

Physics

D (OLC) Maths and

didn't study LC Physics

Not Trackable

Number of Students on

1st Year Engineering Certificate Courses

2003 31.0% 29.3% 7.5% 25.3% 6.9% 174

2004 19.9% 39.7% 15.8% 23.3% 1.4% 146

2005 24.6% 29.8% 15.8% 28.9% 0.9% 114

2006 16.3% 33.3% 10.1% 31.0% 9.3% 129

2007 11.7% 34.0% 4.9% 45.6% 3.9% 103

2008 12.7% 41.0% 9.7% 32.1% 4.5% 134

Numbers in each partition

Commencing first year

in September

of:

C grade or higher in

(OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics

C grade or higher in

Maths and didn't

study LC Physics

D (OLC) Maths and studied LC

Physics

D (OLC) Maths and

didn't study LC Physics

Not Trackable

Number of Students on

1st Year Engineering Certificate Courses

2003 54 51 13 44 12 174

2004 29 58 23 34 2 146

2005 28 34 18 33 1 114

2006 21 43 13 40 12 129

2007 12 35 5 47 4 103

2008 17 55 13 43 6 134

Comments

1. the decrease in the number of students studying Leaving Certificate Physics is a point of note (and concern).

2. offering of the ab-initio Ordinary Degree in Mechanical Engineering has led to a marked decrease from September 2006 onwards in the number of students in the category C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics (decreased from 31% in 2003 to 12.7% in 2008).

3. number of students in the D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics is consistently the smallest category and therefore is expected to be influenced greatly by small changes in student performance as one student passing or not passing in this category will have a larger effect in percentage terms when considering pass rates for this category of student.

Changes

Learning Support changes:

2003 ELSU set-up with pro- active flexible supports

2006 ELSU expanded to Science

2006 ELSU becomes LSU

2007 LSU becomes CELT

2010 CELT loses key staff

Cert changes:

2006 ab-initio Ordinary Degree in Mechanical Engineering introduced

2008 re-designed Cert introduced

2011 changes to entry standards and early engagement

Indicators of student success??

1.Performance in Leaving Certificate Mathematics and having studied Physics in Leaving Certificate as indicators of first year success.

2.Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success

3.First in family to college as an indicator of success.

Performance of students in each partition category:

Commencing first year in September

of:

C grade or higher in (OLC)

Maths and studied LC

Physics

C grade or higher in

Maths and didn't study LC Physics

D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics

D (OLC) Maths and didn't study

LC Physics

Overall pass rate:

2003 90.7% 70.6% 30.8% 40.9% 63.8%

2004 65.5% 56.9% 56.5% 38.2% 53.4%

2005 71.4% 52.9% 50.0% 21.2% 47.4%

2006 52.4% 48.8% 38.5% 37.5% 43.4%

2007 50.0% 37.1% 80.0% 8.5% 29.1%

2008 70.6% 52.7% 30.8% 25.6% 43.3%

Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 1 Maths Head-start

Mathematics Head-StartWorkshops

% Attending % Not attending31.3% 68.7%

% pass rate of those attending Maths Head-start:

% pass rate of those NOT attending Maths Head-start:

% pass rate overall

2008 64.3% 33.7% 43.3%

Proportions passing first year by attendance at 2008 Mathematics Head-start Workshop with overall passing rate

Maths grade on entry% of this category passing who

attended Maths Head-start in 2008% of this category passing who did

not attend Maths Head-start in 2008

C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths 80.0% of 25 students 44.7% of 47 students

D grade ( OLC) Mathematics 42.9% of 14 students 21.4% of 42 students

Proportion of students in each Maths grade category passing first year

Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 1 Physics Head-start

Physics Head-StartWorkshops

% Attending % Not attending32.8% 67.2%

% pass rate of those attending Physics Head-start:

% pass rate of those NOT attending Physics Head-start:

% pass rate overall

2008 68.1% 31% 43.3%

Proportions passing first year by attendance at 2008 Physics Head-start Workshop with overall passing rate

At risk due to Physics grade on entry

% of this category passing who attended Head-start in

Physics

% of this category passing who did not attend Head-start

in Physics

had studied LC Physics 75.0% of 8 students 45.5% of 22 students had NOT studied LC

Physics 68.8% of 32 students 27.3% of 66 students

Proportion of students by physics or not at LC passing first year

Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 2

Attendance at water rocket event at end of week 1 of semester 1.

Proportion of students attending or not the water rocket orientation session:

Attending Not attending Total number of students HC Mech or EM

44.1% 55.9% 93Comparison of student first year performance between those attending and not attending the water rocket orientation session:

% pass rate of those attending water rocket

event

% pass rate of those NOT attending water

rocket event:

% pass HC Mech or EM

61% 23.1% 39.9%

First in family to college as an indicator of success

Proportions of students passing in categories based on answering the first in family survey question

Commencing first year in

September of:

Proportion of students passing overall.

Proportion of students

passing who answered YES

to First in family to go to

third level question.

Proportion of students passing who answered NO to First in family to go to

third level question.

Proportion of students

passing who Didn’t

Answer First in family to go to third level

question

2006 43.4% 43.8% 41.4% 44.1%

2007 29.1% 45.5% 37.1% 15.2%

2008 43.3% 80% 62.1% 28.2%

Conclusions from ELSU report

Factors which must be considered in providing students with the best opportunities of achieving success in first year engineering:

Mathematics level ( local and national evidence)

Physics studied previously

Early engagement

See Recommendations Slide Later

Implications (in the wider context of retention debate) for Maths Support Centres:

Recent HEA report ‘A Study of Progression in Irish Higher Education’

Change to the funding model

One day conference launching report: 28/10/10

Thought provoking presentations from among others :Prof. Vincent Tinto from the US, Dr Ted Fleming NUIM  and Dr. Sean Mc Donagh.

See  http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1386

International context as highlighted by Professor Vincent Tinto

International context as highlighted by Professor Vincent Tinto at HEA conference.

1. Conditions for Student Retention

2. Forms of Effective Practice

3. Lessons learnt

Enhancing Student Retention: Lessons Learned in the United States Vincent Tinto Distinguished University Professor Syracuse University

Tinto: Conditions for Student Retention.

Expectations – high expectationsImplications for need for care in phrasing around supports

Alignment/connection of academic supports with classroom experience: ‘contextualised academic support’

Frequent assessment AND feedback: EARLY assessment – 3-4 weeks at the LATEST

Student involvement in academic and social life Having a friend

Tinto: Forms of Effective Practice.

WHAT to provide1. Advising

2. Financial, academic and social supports

Supplemental Instructionhttp://www.umkc.edu/cad/si

Embedded academic supports http://www.highereducation.org/reports/Policy_Practice/IBEST.pdf

KEY FOR EITHER is linking to a particular class

Tinto: Forms of Effective Practice.

WHAT to provide ctd.

3. Learning CommunitiesParticularly effective

http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/home.aspLinked classes

WHEN to provideEarly in first year

Signals Project at Purdue University http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/signals/

Tinto: Lessons Learnt

Effective Higher Education Institutes:

Focus on first year

Pursue intentional structured and systemic actionRetention is everyones businessAcross boundary co-operationDon’t invest in discrete unconnected actions

Go for institutional change to embrace learning communities etc.

Recommendations in ITTD

Review the entrance level for the certificate

Structure of the first weeks of the student experience in a way that students are encouraged to engage immediately

a) Establish study groups in 1st yearb) CA in Week 3 in every module (15min test) with immediate

feedback –to drive them into a study group and to give clear indication of who is not participating actively)

c) PAL conceptd) Orientation week refined to be just getting started with

team building exercises, key engineering skills, i.e, calculators, library visits etc built in.

Mechanism which can react proactively to the needs of students who are not immediately engaging with their course of studies. - CELT

For Maths Learning Centres……

Seek to be a key catalyst in retention efforts across HEIs – ideally positioned to influence.

MLCs more pro-actively engage with Depts to promote the structuring of the first weeks of the student experience in a way that students are encouraged to engage immediately

a) Establish study groups in 1st yearb) CA in Week 3 in Maths module (15min test) with

immediate feedback –to drive them into a study group and to give clear indication of who is not participating actively)

c) Active promotion of Maths Learning Centre facilities in weeks 1 and 2 ( now in a context of the early CA)