Abstract to STEM-SOTL 2013: final draft

The Impact of Supplemental Instruction on Teaching and Learning

Laurie Huffman, Catrena Lisse, Jeanne Haslam, Lisa Buttita, Rosalie Richards

 

Proposal Abstract (60 words or fewer)

This session is designed for participants new to Supplemental Instruction (SI) or already acquainted with non-remedial, peer-facilitated learning opportunities. After a brief introduction to our SI Program at Georgia College, members of an SI Teaching Circle will facilitate a discussion with conference participants on the benefits and challenges of the program from the perspective of our students, supplemental instructors and our faculty.

 

Proposal Description – Include session objectives, audience participation

At Georgia College, a robust STEM Supplemental Instruction Program is targeting entry level STEM courses, those traditionally identified as “gateway” courses to STEM and related careers. The Program provides non-remedial peer-facilitated tutoring/study sessions by qualified, trained undergraduate students (SI). SIs attend the classes of the students they encourage and mentor in a given course. During supplemental instruction, the student learners build new knowledge in collaboration with peers while the SI affirms her knowledge and builds confidence, leadership and communication skills. Georgia College has supported supplemental instruction over the years towards increasing retention in challenging STEM courses. In the biological sciences, for example, supplemental instruction was identified as a leading factor in the 30% reduction in DFW rates in BIOL 2100 “Genetics” during an eight year study. With the advent the Georgia College STEM Initiative and centralized supplemental instruction at the Learning Center, a group of faculty and staff created a teaching circle dedicated to integrating best practices in supplemental instruction into a vibrant program.

The primary goal for this session is to establish collaborations with campuses that have Supplemental Instruction Programs or those interested in building new ones. After a brief introduction to the Georgia College program, presenters will use case studies from their Supplemental Instructor Mini-Guide to stimulate discussion on the benefits and challenges of supplemental instruction from the perspective of students, supplemental instructors and faculty.  Presenters will also highlight a novel collaboration among faculty members, the Learning Center director, and the Georgia College STEM Initiative coordinators to demonstrate how faculty-led networks to champion best practices in supplemental instruction can be integrated into the culture of any institution.

Abstract Draft for the Institutional Transformation Theme - Please Edit

-->

Title

Something clever

Proposal Abstract (60 words or fewer)

Our roundtable will showcase the development and implementation of Supplemental Instruction program at Georgia College.  We will highlight the collaboration among faculty members, the Learning Center Director, and the Georgia College STEM Grant administrators established to select, train and mentor the advanced undergraduate Supplemental Instructors. 

Proposal Description –( Include session objectives, audience participation)

After a brief introduction to the SI program at Georgia College, members of a Supplemental Instruction Teaching Circle will facilitate a discussion with conference participants on the benefits and challenges of such a program from the perspective of the SI’s, faculty (what do we call the faculty who have SI’s in their classes?) and students enrolled in the STEM course.  We hope to establish a connection with other campuses who have a Supplemental Instructor program or who are interested in building one. 

MSWIPE System

September 10, 2012: UPDATED

Online sign-in for supplemental instructors:

We are trying very hard to “double” track your time, your focused tutoring sessions, the number of students we are successfully serving, and those students’ success rate in the class. In order to do this, please utilize both formats of accountability: the online system AND the hard copy paper sign-in. Hopefully we will only need this dual system for fall semester.

For the online system, please go to:

mswipe.gcsu.edu or try:http://mswipe.gcsu.edu/stracks/admin

user name: supplinstruction

password: supp13m1n (the password is new/slightly different)

If you use their bobcat ID # and it doesn’t recognize the student, use first and last name and see if that populates their classes. Choose the class, log in per student, and choose the correct (YOU) as the Supplemental Instructor (SI).

When the tutoring session is concluded, you can easily see the active users and clock all of them out.

Please do not forget to clock them out as after 24 hours, the system will boot them all out. Also, never falsify information in this system please!

I know a hard copy is a pain, however, it will serve several purposes! Please have the form out and ready for the students sign-in; it would be wonderful if they could make it legible. You will have your professor initial the upper corner of that at the end of every week. That gives them a good look at the number of students attending, and specifically who is attending.

November 13: Minutes for STEM SI Teaching Circle

The meeting started at 12:03 PM.
 Catrena will add to the minutes.


All circle members were in attendance.
Catrena ordered lunch from Quiznos and delivered it!!

MSWIPE
Jeanne discussed the MSWIPE System (mswipe.gcsu.edu) used to check students in for tutoring.
Mike asked if we made SI mandatory. In general, the response was no.

CULTURE OF SI
Students lied to Lisa about going to SI.
The culture of SI will have to build/shift for students to see the benefits of SI

SI Load in STEM:
SIs sometimes need more than 2 hours of prep. especially to evaluate the problem-solving.
Some SIs use office hours.

STEM-SOTL (GaSouthern) - March 8 (deadline: Dec. 18): http://stem.georgiasouthern.edu
A discussion around types of presentations ensued.
-Institutional transformation roundtable: What is the SI Program at GC (Huffman)
-The Academic Program (more data-driven): What are we doing, what are we looking at (20 minute) - what the data tells us about about the SI program; Creating an assessment program for SI (Gleason)

Mike G. had to leave for class but the meeting continued


USG Teaching & Learning Conference - April 4/5 (deadline: Jan 4)
A blend/hybrid presentation (45 minutes)
Very costly program: $135 registration. Catrena going to New Orleans for ACS and cannot present.

Data for principles 1211 and 1212: ACS pre/post-test; we can take that data and SI attendance
Longitudinal study: Chance of  students who have persisted to a degree might be a good measure

RESOURCES FOR STEM MANUAL
Laurie asked if we had to recreate the wheel; that is, why not capitalize on current resources.
Catrena said that there were some materials that were for purchase. She would look into it.

Everyone registered  online for the STEM-SOTL.

The circle adjourned at 1:20 PM.

Nov circle session: Tuesday, November 13 at noon?

Colleagues:
Circle time for November is in the lean+ portion of the scale for Tuesday, noon for lunch.

We are awaiting word from Mike G but so far all can meet for lunch at noon on Tuesday, Nov 13.
Circle funds can support lunch, so keep your receipts.

Let's get an agenda going.
Please send your ideas...
So far, items that have come in are:

1. bring artifacts that you use with your SIs to share
2. discuss the SI manual (http://www.usu.edu/arc/supplemental_instruction/pdf/SI_Manual.pdf)
3. what data can we begin collecting at the end of Fall 2013
4. put together a STEM-SOTL proposal for presentation March 8, 2013 (GaSouthern)
4. put together a USG Engaged Learning proposal for presentation in April (Athens)
5. Spring 2013 SIs: optimal time SI  for SI selection, the funding call by the STEM Initiative, better alignments with HR to foster SI working during the first week of class

Others?
_______________________________________

SI Manual

Catrena sent this to the group:
-------------------
I was looking at different successful SI programs and came across this SI Manual that is used at Utah State.

http://www.usu.edu/arc/supplemental_instruction/pdf/SI_Manual.pdf

I think we need to work on putting something like this together or at least put together our thoughts/ideas in a manual format to pass on to new faculty, new SIs, etc...

In your spare time (if you have any) please take a look at the manual so we can discuss this concept at our next meeting.  I will send each of you an invite to a Dropbox where I plan on placing the manual and all other readings I come across.  I also started a "responsibilities" list for faculty and SIs that I am placing in the Dropbox.  Feel free to add your ideas to the list as it will be a working document throughout our circle.

Sorry for bombarding you with so much but I had no students show up for office hours today so I did some SI research.
Have a happy Halloween!

Regards,
Catrena

-

Meeting minutes: October 22, 2012

Meeting Minutes

STEM SI Teaching Circle Meeting

Science Education Center

October 22, 2012

In attendance: Jeanne Haslam (Learning Center), Michael Gleason (biology), Laurie Huffman (mathematics), Catrena Lisse (chemistry): co-chair, and Rosalie A. Richards (science education): co-chair

Regrets: Lisa Buttitta (chemistry), Marcela Chiorescu (mathematics): conflicted with class time

The meeting initiated at 3:10 pm with introductions by circle members. Richards gave a quick overview of the motivation for the circle proposal and hence, the circle.

The discussion first centered around a discussion of the outcomes for the circles work:

a.       Gleason suggested that a publication from analysis of STEM SI work would be a worthwhile undertaking. Members agreed.

b.      The discussion also identified the diversity of the use of SIs across disciplines, specifically, the use of SI prep time. Lisse underscored that prep time should be used for faculty to work directly with SIs. She discussed how she used her SI prep time (meeting weekly with students, helping them design the tasks for the week, going over notes, assignments, assessing areas of need, etc).

c.       This led to a discussion about policies for faculty working with SIs; if there were any and if not, how could these policies be phased in.

                                 i.      Huffman suggested that guidelines for faculty would help significantly, especially as a benchmark for the impact of minimum requirements

                               ii.      Lisse was unsure that that faculty would want to do anything more

d.      When Richards probed about how different STEM discipline used SIs

                                 i.      Gleason indicated that biology used SIs in a laboratory setting (Manoylov), in lecture (France) and in a hybrid situation (Gleason)

                                                               i.            Lisse responded that SIs were used similarly in chemistry; that in the GC1Y and 1212 courses, they functioned as the “lecturers” during their tutoring time in order to force students to understand their assignments versus “doing” their assignments; they facilitated students’ working examples on the board and helped them to useg model kits to advance learning

e.      Huffman asked how we would undertake data collection by discipline and how this information would help inform Haslam’s training and professional development program at the Learning Center:

a.       The circle settled on a short guide to using STEM SIs that might include profiles of SIs, case studies, etc.

b.      Concerning  guidelines for faculty working with SIs, the discussion settled on making the process simple, phased-in system with a reward (versus punitive) approach. Gleason suggested a short survey for this semester for faculty coordinating SIs with a pull-down menu as a simple start for both pre- and post-assessment using a Likert scale.

f.        Haslam asked if SIs were more work for faculty.

a.       Huffman responded with a “no” based on the output for the input; she also suggested a math SI coordinator. However, Gleason disagreed, suggesting that the coordinator model would reducethe interaction of SI and faculty. Huffman clarified her suggestion, indicating that some point person in the discipline to collect the data (ex. SALG, test data, course data, etc.) might be important.

b.      Circle members also suggested that students participating in the SI experience should take a SALG survey

g.       A discussion ensued around SI selection: the funding call by the STEM Initiative, optimal time in the academic calendar for SI selection, better alignments with HR to foster SI working during the first week of class. Haslam agreed that the center saw these as critical to the optimal functioning of the SI program. Haslam also provided data that showed where lowest use of SIs were among disciplines and use of this information for making cases for need in evaluating funding for SIs.

h.      The circle decided that other dissemination would also include the USG STEM-SOTL conference at Georgia Southern and USG Engaged Learning Conference in Athens. When asked about local dissemination (at GC), the discussion settled on the development of guidelines for faculty and other outcomes through the Learning Center. These were identified as more exponential pathways to include more faculty than a lunch & learn or a presentation because of the difficulty finding common meeting times.

                                                                                                                                                                                                

Next circle meeting:

-The circle will discuss what members are doing with their SIs. Members will bring any artifacts to share.  

-Should we engage in any common readings and if so, what?

-Richards asked members to sign in on the blog and read the proposals and any assignments.

The next meeting date/time: Patti will send out a Doodle for early November.

The circle meeting ended at approximately 4:05 PM.

Respectfully submitted by

Rosalie A. Richards, circle co-chair

October 31, 2012

Teaching Circle Proposal

 

Best Practices in Supplemental Instruction in the STEM Disciplines

Georgia College & State University

 

Circle Members: Lisa Buttitta (chemistry), Marcela Chiorescu (mathematics), Jeanne Haslam (Learning Center), Michael Gleason (biology), Laurie Huffman (mathematics), Catrena Lisse (chemistry): co-chair, and Rosalie A. Richards (science education): co-chair

 

Case for Need

Supplemental Instruction provides non-remedial peer-facilitated tutoring/study sessions by qualified, trained undergraduate students (SI) who attend the classes of the students they encourage and mentor in a given course. During supplemental instruction, the learner builds new knowledge in collaboration with peers while the SI affirms her knowledge and builds confidence, leadership and communication skills. Studies suggest that students participating in supplemental instruction benefit over non-participants by improved final course grades (Commander, Stratton, Callahan & Smith, 1996; Fayowski & McMillan, 2008; Moore & LeDee, 2006), cumulative GPA (Fayowski & McMillan, 2008), and graduation rates (Arendale, 1998; Bowles, McCoy & Bates, 2008). Georgia College has supported SIs over the years towards increasing retention in challenging courses. In general, students struggle with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses.¹ In the biological sciences at Georgia College, for example, supplemental instruction was identified as a leading factor in the 30% reduction in DFW rates in BIOL 2100 “Genetics” during an eight year study (Gleason, 2010). More recently, with the advent the GC STEM Initiative, support for SIs in introductory STEM courses has increased.  Between FY09-FY11, the project supported SIs through mini-grants. Beginning FY12, SIs in the STEM disciplines were funded primarily through the STEM Retention Initiative, accounting for the boost in numbers. In FY13, for example, among the 45 SIs supported across disciplines, 36 were dedicated to the STEM disciplines, potentially impacting over one-third of our first and second-year student population.

 

Several events have led to the crafting of this proposal. First, during the first-ever STEM SI Workshop for in November 2011, SIs overwhelming shared a deep passion for their work (excerpt) and a great need for exposure to strategies for facilitating student learning. Second, centralizing supplemental instruction at the Learning Center beginning Fall 2011 has allowed for better coordination of SIs and presents a rare opportunity to influence the academic component of supplemental instruction. Third and most importantly, SIs afford a critical link between classroom learning experiences and student reflection. With increased numbers of SIs in the STEM disciplines, Georgia College could realize a significant impact on improved learning by both student and SI. Consequently, prospective members of this teaching circle, many of whom have had or are supervising SIs, are deeply committed to enriching the Georgia College student and faculty experience by exploring, applying and disseminating best practice strategies for meaningful supplemental instruction.

 

Project Description

Towards the goal of improving student retention and success within targeted historically-difficult STEM courses, the circle will meet monthly from October 2012 to April 2013 to achieve the following outcomes:

Outcome 1: To compile a comprehensive review of best practices in supplemental instruction with respect to the SI, the students being peer-facilitated, and the faculty mentor. Our work will initiate with an assessment of models showcased at the International Center for Supplemental Instruction at University of Missouri-Kansas City (2012) and other sources on peer instruction. Thereafter, circle members will inventory GC models of supplemental instruction by examining our own methods of student engagement, SI mentoring practices identified from feedback gathered by the Learning Center. We will use this data to assess the strengths and challenges of our SI program and guide the development of a SI best practice document.

 

Outcome 2: To investigate strategies that measure and demonstrate impact of supplemental instruction.

We will invite experts, such as the Center for Program Evaluation and Development, to assist us in identifying strategies for evaluating the impact of STEM SIs on teaching/learning, including mechanisms for continuous feedback. In addition, we will examine other resources such as evaluation instruments developed by Iowa State's Academic Success Center (2012), Valdosta State University’s program (2012), and others. In order to integrate student feedback into our practice and for the improvement of the supplemental instruction program, we will invite input from current SIs. Several have already communicated interest in participating as guests during at least two circle meetings. We will also use aggregated student feedback from peer-facilitated sessions provided by the Learning Center. We envision that our findings will lay a foundation to advocate for elevated support of supplemental instruction at Georgia College, specifically within the context of a public liberal arts mission and our exemplary undergraduate learning experience strategic direction.

Outcome 3: To contribute best practice approaches in supplemental instruction to the development of SI training workshops facilitated by the Learning Center’s SI Program.  Our work will uncover best practices for (a) developing productive mentoring relationships that elevate the faculty/SI educational team; and (b) peer-facilitation techniques, specifically student engagement. The SI coordinator, J. Haslam, will be a circle member and a desired outcome for the center is specialized training modules for SIs and faculty mentors. To support the center’s work and impact our own practice, circle members will discuss common readings, such as Lipsky’s SI training guide (2011) and Barkley’s student engagement techniques handbook (2009).

Outcome 4: To disseminate the circle’s findings locally and state-wide. We will present our work at the STEM-SoTL Conference on March 8 at Georgia Southern University. The Georgia College STEM Initiative has already committed to funding conference travel. We also anticipate presenting our findings locally at the university-wide annual STEM Symposium  in March 2013.

Evaluation of the circle: The success of the teaching circle will be measured by (a) member participation rate; (b) pre-post survey circle member dispositions on supplemental instruction; (c) development of a best practice review on supplemental instruction; and (d) presentation/feedback from the SoTL conference and STEM Symposium.

Project Management: The teaching circle will be co-chaired by Rosalie Richards and Catrena Lisse.  Lisse will be responsible for coordinating circle activities and Richards will manage the budget and final report.  

Budget: A total of $500 is requested; some funds will be used to purchase common readings ($320) via Amazon.com. The remainder will be used to cover the cost of lunch for meetings throughout the year ($180).

 

References

Academic Success Center at Iowa State University. 2012. http://new.dso.iastate.edu/asc/supplemental

Arendale, D. (1998). Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of learning for freshmen students through Supplemental Instruction.  In P. Dwinell, & J. S. Higbee (Eds.). The role of developmental education in preparing successful college students.  Columbia, SC.: The National Association for Developmental Education and the National Center for the Study of the First Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Barkley, E. F. (2009) Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Bowles, T., McCoy, A., & Bates, S. (2008). The effect of Supplemental Instruction on timely graduation. College Student Journal, 42(3), 853-859.

Commander, N. F., Stratton, C. B., Callahan, C. A., & Smith, B. D. (1996).  A learning assistance model for expanding academic support.  Journal of Developmental Education. 20(2), 8-16.

Fayowski, V., & MacMillan, P. (2008). An evaluation of the Supplemental Instruction programme in a first year calculus course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 39(7), 843-855.

Gleason, M.  (2010) Supplemental Instructors for lower-level biology courses. Georgia College STEM Mini-Grant Final Report.

Lipsky, S. A. (2011). A Training Guide for College Tutors and Peer Educators, Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Moore, R., & LeDee, O. (2006). Supplemental Instruction and the performance of developmental education students in an introductory biology course.  Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(2), 9-20.

Student Success Center at Valdosta State University. 2012. http://www.valdosta.edu/ssc/SupplementalInstruction.shtml

The International SI Center. 2012. http://www.umkc.edu/cad/si/overview.shtml

_____________

¹STEM is defined here as biology, chemistry, computer science, environmental science, mathematics and physics.