Impact of Supplemental Instruction on Students in STEM Courses : Impact of Supplemental Instruction on Students in STEM Courses Alan Peterfreund, Kenneth Rath Peterfreund Associates Presented – April 18, 2006 University of Massachusetts Amherst STEM Education Institute Special thanks to: Samuel Xenos, Peterfreund Associates ---- Frank Bayliss & Michael Garrity, SFSU Funded by: NIH MORE R.E.S.U.L.T.S. (Research and Evaluation of Students Using Long-Term Studies); NIH Grant #RFA-GM-03-011; Simeon Slovacek P.I., Alan Peterfreund, Co-P.I.


Supplemental Instruction Courses: Supplemental Instruction Courses Support difficult courses, not high-risk students Peer facilitators Supplemental material/problems Embedded study and learning skills Cooperative learning Voluntary attendance


Findings from Literature: Findings from Literature Increases in course grades Decreases in D/F failures Higher retention rates – money savings Lower SAT/ACT than non-takers Benefit both genders, all races/ethnicities


San Francisco State University: San Francisco State University Urban campus Most students commute ~23,000 Undergraduates, ~6,000 Graduates 33% White, 25% Asian, 40% Various URM No doctoral programs (only master’s) Majority have outside jobs Average over 5 years for graduation


Supplemental Instruction at SFSU: Supplemental Instruction at SFSU Began in 1999 22 different courses in 4 departments 500-600 students/year in recent years Up to 40% of some classes in SI SI courses in catalog Funded through NIH MORE grant; no institutional support


Impact of Supplemental Instruction at SFSU: Impact of Supplemental Instruction at SFSU Higher course performance (passing and progressing) Takers tend to come to SFSU with weaker academic indicators Higher rates of taking subsequent courses in the discipline. Women take more but men, when they show up, benefit more Performance levels for URM students taking SI reach and often surpass non-SI takers URM students participate in SI more than students from other racial/ethnic groups


Data Description: Data Description Data collected from institutional records: Grades, semesters, & SI status for all STEM classes Fall 1992-Spring 2005 Demographics: SAT, high school GPA, race/ethnicity, gender, major Limitations of data analysis: Excluded if did not receive grade in SI or supported course Examined only last grade in class


Course Descriptions: Course Descriptions


Intro to Biology I: Intro to Biology I


Intro Biology – Course Grades: Intro Biology – Course Grades SI C- or better – 85% Non C- or better – 73%


Intro Biology– Student Background: Intro Biology– Student Background


Intro Biology SAT Dist.: Intro Biology SAT Dist. SAT Verbal SAT Math


Intro Biology– Taking of Subsequent Classes: Intro Biology– Taking of Subsequent Classes ** ** **


Intro Biology– Gender Differences: Intro Biology– Gender Differences Males Females SI – 71% Females; Non – 65% Females


Intro Biology– Underrepresented Minorities: Intro Biology– Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class ** ** ** **


GraduationIntro Bio SI Status: Minorities and All Studentsbased on students enrolled Fall 99 – Spring 01: Graduation Intro Bio SI Status: Minorities and All Students based on students enrolled Fall 99 – Spring 01


Minority GPA Changes by SI StatusGPA at time of taking Intro Bio and at graduation: Minority GPA Changes by SI Status GPA at time of taking Intro Bio and at graduation


Genetics: Genetics


Genetics – Course Grades: Genetics – Course Grades SI C- or better – 96% Non C- or better – 91%


Genetics – Student Background: Genetics – Student Background


Genetics – Gender Differences: Genetics – Gender Differences Males Females SI – 69% Females; Non – 65% Females


Genetics – Underrepresented Minorities: Genetics – Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class * **


Gen. Chem I: Concepts: Gen. Chem I: Concepts


Chem 1 – Course Grades: Chem 1 – Course Grades SI C- or better – 92% Non C- or better – 85%


Chem 1 – Student Background: Chem 1 – Student Background


Chem 1 – Taking of Subsequent Classes: Chem 1 – Taking of Subsequent Classes ** *


Chem 1 – Gender Differences: Chem 1 – Gender Differences Males Females SI – 72% Females; Non – 54% Females


Chem 1 – Underrepresented Minorities: Chem 1 – Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class ** ** *


Organic Chem I: Organic Chem I


O. Chem 1 – Course Grades: O. Chem 1 – Course Grades SI C- or better – 91% Non C- or better – 84%


O. Chem 1– Student Background: O. Chem 1– Student Background


O. Chem 1– Gender Differences: O. Chem 1– Gender Differences Males Females SI – 68% Females; Non – 65% Females


O. Chem 1– Underrepresented Minorities: O. Chem 1– Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class ** *


Gen. Physics I: Gen. Physics I


Physics 1 – Course Grades: Physics 1 – Course Grades SI C- or better – 95% Non C- or better – 86%


Physics 1– Student Background: Physics 1– Student Background


Physics 1– Gender Differences: Physics 1– Gender Differences Males Females SI – 75% Females; Non – 62% Females


Physics 1– Underrepresented Minorities: Physics 1– Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class ** * *


Calculus I: Calculus I


Calculus I– Course Grades: Calculus I– Course Grades SI C- or better – 87% Non C- or better – 81%


Calculus I – Student Background: Calculus I – Student Background


Calculus I – Gender Differences: Calculus I – Gender Differences Males Females SI – 75% Females; Non – 62% Females


Calculus I – Underrepresented Minorities: Calculus I – Underrepresented Minorities Proportion receiving C- or better Mean grade in the class *


Cost Modeling: Cost Modeling ~$115 per student Prevents at least 170 students from D/F failing out over 5 years Assumes failure rates equal to non-SI Lower SAT would predict more Suggestion that retention rate changes higher than this Savings in lost tuition, recruitment


Ongoing Research: Ongoing Research Graduation rates and GPA changes Examination by student survey ratings Examination by specific situations – SI instructor survey Replication at New Mexico State University SLIDES AVAILABLE AT www.peterfreund.com