No Change 12/16 = 75% 12/39 = 30.8%1-level up 11/11 = 100% 11/39 = 28.2%2-level up 2/4 = 50% 2/39 = 5.1% Overall 25/31 = 80.6% 25/39 = 64.1% Program Success Rate 36/39 = 92.3%Program Math Success Rate 31/39 = 79.5%Program Success Overall which success in Math 25/31 = 80.6%
No Change 12/16 = 75% 12/36 = 33.3%1-level up 11/11 = 100% 11/36 = 30.6%2-level up 2/4 = 50% 2/36= 5.6% Overall 25/31 = 80.6% 25/36 = 69.4%Program Success Rate 31/36 = 92.3%Program Math Success Rate 25/36 = 69.4%Program Success Overall which success in Math 25/31 = 80.6%
Transcript
1.
Accelerating the Path to Degree Completion and Increasing Retention through STEM Scholars Step-Up Bridge Program AFACCT 22nd Annual Conference January 5, 2012 Session 1.7 Supawan King, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Math Chris Jones, Assistant Professor of Math Harford Community College
2.
Presentation Overview STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge Program Mathematics Curriculum Tracking of Students Student Feedback & Next Steps Questions2 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
3.
STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge Program STEM Programs at HCC STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge program and Curriculum Design Selection of population Anticipated Outcomes3 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
4.
HCC STEM Programs HCC STEM Programs Math, Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Environmental Science, Engineering Technology, CADD, Biotechnology Fall 2011 majors: Engineering: 181; Biology 141; Engineering Technology: 61; Chemistry: 46 Strong STEM focus regionally and nationally Concerns: looming workforce shortages in STEM fields combined with declining student interest and readiness for STEM fields4 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
5.
HCC STEM Vision/Goals HCC STEM Vision/Goals Meet regional needs for a prepared STEM workforce by: Increasing number of students pursuing STEM degrees Ensuring students are prepared to be successful Supporting degree completion5 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
6.
STEM Bridge Program Design STEM Bridge Program Design First year design: 3 weeks, five days per week, 8 hour days Fully integrated program Developed career awareness and strengthened skills in English, math, research, and academic skills Daily, each morning: math and English; afternoons: science, labs Daily lunch conversations with scientists and engineerings6 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
7.
Program Design Program Design Second year program design: Two tracks, Engineering and Science Enrolled higher numbers of engineering majors Daily lunches with guest speakers very popular Third year program design: Increased focus on engineering; majority of students enrolled were engineering majors Four weeks, three days per week Increased math content, integrated English/research into science/engineering content7 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
8.
Selection of Population Selection of Population Mailed letters to homes; well publicized; worked with advising; sent brochures to high schools First year: targeted incoming STEM majors who tested just at or below college level math Second and third year: targeted all incoming STEM majors, since focus included engineering majors who need to be calculus ready in first semester8 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
9.
Anticipated Outcomes Anticipated Outcomes Retain students in STEM majors through degree completion by: Shortening time to degree completion by advancing placements in math Connecting students to each other, to resources, to the STEM community Strengthening academic skills Increasing knowledge of various STEM careers9 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
10.
Mathematics Curriculum Mathematics Curriculum Development Pre-Assessment Daily Lectures & MyMathTest Post-Assessment Math Placement Over-expectation of student’s math skill Curriculum Redesign Algebra Track Function Track10 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
11.
Math Curriculum Redesign Math 002 Intro to Algebra Math 017 Intermediate Algebra Algebra Algebra Post- Track Assessment Math 101 College Algebra Pre- Math 103 Assessment Trigonometry Math 109 Pre-Calculus Function Function Post- Track Assessment Math 203 Calculus I11 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
13.
Tracking of Students Population: Bridge Students Summer 2009: n = 20 (F=3, M=17, HS=1) Summer 2010: n = 19 (F=6, M=14, HS=2) Data collected from Fall 2009 to Spring 2011 Student Performance Student Success: Retention, Completion, and Transfer Reduction in Time to Completion13 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
14.
Student Performance4.0 3.89 GPA by Degree (Spring 2011, n = 36, College Average = 2.85) 3.21 3.25 3.16 3.03 3.00 3.02 2.97 2.89 2.90 2.933.0 2.86 2.74 2.82 2.74 2.80 2.77 2.72 2.66 2.70 2.56 2.46 2.40 2.272.01.00.014 Bridge STEM AFACCT, January 5, 2012
15.
Student Performance GPA (Spring 2011, n = 36, , College Average = 2.85) 3.5 2.99 3.0 2.90 2.88 2.71 2.71 2.64 2.5 2.0 Sci, Engr, & Math Technology Non STEM Bridge Overall AFACCT, January 5, 201215
16.
Student Success - PerformanceOf 39 Bridge students STEM Bridge Students Overall (2009-2010, n = 39) 15.8% initially success 66% success 14 13 11% fail, and 12 12 Initiallly Success 8% withdraw 10 Success 8 Fail 6 Withdraw from the 4 program 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 2009 201016 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
17.
Student Success in Math - Performance 80% of successful Bridge students passed subsequent Math courses Student Success overall by Degree Student Success in Math by Degree (2009-2010, n = 36) (2009-2010, n = 31) 100% 2 Non STEM 90% 10% 80% 2 Technology 1 10% 70% 60% 22 50% Fail Sci, Engr, & 40% 2 Math 30% Success 80% 1 20% 10% 5 1 Initial 0% Success Sci, Engr, & Technology Non STEM Math17 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
18.
Success of Math Intervention > 80% of Bridge students Student Success in Math Requirements are successful in Math 100% courses 90% 88.2% 85.7% 83.3% 80% 72.8% 72.7% 72.8% 94% of Bridge students 70% with no change in their 60% initial Math placement are successful 50% 40% 80% of Bridge students 30% placed one or two 20% levels up in Math courses 10% are successful 0% 2009 2010 Overall Bridge Students STEM Students18 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
19.
Student Success after Bridge Placement Success in Math Courses after Bridge Placement (n = 36) 100% 1 90% 3 1 80% 70% 60% 50% 16 Fail 40% 11 4 Success 30% 20% 10% 0% No Change 1-level up 2-level up19 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
20.
Student Success after Bridge Placement No Change in Math Placement 1-Level up of Math Placement (n = 17) (n = 14)12 10 6 5 5 5 510 9 58 46 34 3 3 2 2 1 12 1 10 0 Trans 100 Level 200 Level Trans 100 Level 200 Level 2-Level up of Math Placement (n = 5) 4 3 3 2 2 SM 1 SM&S 1 0 020 Trans 100 Level AFACCT, January 5, 2012
21.
Student Success after Bridge Placement Transitional Level Initial Math 100 Level Initial Math Placement Placement (n = 16) (n = 10) 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 No Change 1-level up 2-level up No Change 1-level up 2-level up 200 Level Initial Math Placement (n = 11) 12 10 10 9 8 6 Math 4 Math & Overall 2 1 121 0 AFACCT, January 5, 2012 No Change 1-level up
22.
Student Success after Bridge Placement Success in Math & Overall (n=31) 100.0% 100% 90% 80.6% 80% 75.0% 70% 60% 50.0% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% No Change 1-level up 2-level up Overall22 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
23.
Student Success after Bridge Placement (Summary) Program Population 2009-2010 (n =36 + 3 withdrew) with no change in Success Overall (31) 92.3% 33.3% Math Placement (12) with 1-level up in Math Success in Math (25) 69.4% 30.6% Placement (11) Success Overall & with 2-level up in 80.6% 5.6% Math (25/31) Math Placement (2)23 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
24.
Bridge Student Status Student Status as of Fall 2011 (n = 39) Withdrew No Record 8% 10% Graduate 5% Transfer Current 18% 59%24 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
25.
Summary The STEM Scholars Bridge program is successful in: Closing gaps in content knowledge Preparing students with college-ready skills Reducing time to completion25 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
26.
Student Feedback & Next Steps26 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
27.
Contact STEM Division: STEM@harford.edu Deborah Wrobel, Dean of STEM (443) 412-2240 dwrobel@harford.edu Supawan King, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Math (443) 412-2601 sking@harford.edu Chris Jones, Assistant Professor of Math (443) 412-2055 cjones@harford.edu27 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
Be the first to comment