Reaching Students Where they Are - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Reaching Students Where they Are to Achieve a Deeper LearningThe StoRY of SGCO 1000Slide2

SGCO 1000 (1-hour inst. credit)SGC’s FYE Program ContextCourse Background and ArchitectureReaching Students Where they AreWith student-friendly technologiesWith counter-intuitive pedagogiesGuiding PhilosophiesPeer-modeling with a differenceAttending to “hyperbolic discounting”Slide3

SGC’s FYE ProgramA component of SGC’s Complete College Georgia effortThe constituent, interdependent parts of CCG:ROAR and SOAR: Residential or Student Orientation and Registration, a series of summer and fall workshops and registration sessions leading to accurate advising and schedulingIncreased tutoring and counseling supportEarly intervention protocols at the point of entryChanging the faculty culture through Division retention plans and faculty development session

A first-semester orientation course, SGCO 1000Slide4

The Orientation Course IdealThe Interdependency of the Orientation Course to the other pieces of StARProviding students their first comprehensive advisement sessionOrienting them to tutoring resources on campusPreventing Academic Probation, and arming them for it if all else failsPreparing them for the high-level expectations of discipline coursesBuilding learning-communitiesA deeper and richer form of ROAR and SOARAcclimatizing them to a culture of college successSlide5

Provenance of SGCO 1000 GoalsStAR:Increase the retention rate from 51.49% for fall 2008 cohort to 60% for fall 2012 cohortSGC graduation rate will soar from 12.4% for fall 2006 cohort to 20% for the fall 2013 cohortThe % of residential students lost to LS suspension will decrease from 13% in fall 2008 to 5% in fall 2013Complete College Georgia (Design pending)Increase the percentage of adult Georgians with a College certificate or degree from 43% in 2011 to 60% by 2020Slide6

Course Background/Architecture, 2010-2011Lessons learned from first yearA “Kitchen-sink” approach with “every-teacher-for-himself” was un-assessable and unsuccessfulComprehensive textbook was unworkableLimitations to ROAR student restricted the academic focusA staff-heavy faculty (for SGCO 1000) restricted the academic focus further2011-2012:Transition from ROAR to SOAR required a course revampingSlide7

Key Lessons Learned, FY, 2010-11An omnibus text cannot serve a one-semester courseA staff-heavy faculty resulted in curricula reflective of instructor, not student, needsStudent opinion, rather than student or class performance, was assessed (in contrast to all other courses)Neither the College mission nor the full spectrum of StAR

objectives were integrated in the courseSlide8

The New SGCO 1000 (2011-12)For ALL, First-time, Full-time studentsGuided by a common curriculumNo textbook7 modules on academic subjects (negotiating the LS path, paths to student success, GPA calculation. avoiding academic probation, student conduct issues, designing their schedules for the next semester, the common reader as an entrée to critical thinking, and diversity understanding)

Sensitivity to “soft skills” deficiencies

Guided by a common coordinatorSlide9

Getting Ready for Fall 2011 RolloutOvercoming the Staffing challenge:Wanted: A balance of staff and credentialed faculty weighted toward the latterSlight financial remuneration: $750 per instructor but only for the 17th hour or higher

Experience with ELI Program led to SMART objective setting: 70% of faculty will be credentialed instructors by fall 2011

Overcoming the Unevenness in Quality

Design of a common syllabus and a requirement to attend one of three instructor workshops in summer, 2011

The introduction of common, assessable learning outcomes to all sectionsSlide10

“Early Wins” Leading to “SMART” SuccessThe Plan had 100% backing from the President and the CabinetBy May, the President, VPAA, VPSS, three Division chairs, and other members of the Cabinet with doctorates had committed to teachThe May and June workshop led to other instructor commitments19 instructor (15 with MA or higher): 78% (SMART goal achieved)Slide11

Reaching Students Where they AREWell, where are they?Except for 2 sections for residential students, they are randomly selectedThey are woefully lacking soft skillsResearch suggests they are prone to hyberbolic discountingThey are disoriented and not disengaged (Dr. Uri Treisman

)

At first they discount the obstacles before them– within weeks they display a discounting of

their strengths/potentialSlide12

How to Reach These Students?In an Orientation Class, Behavior that is deadly in other classes is the ultimate teachable moment: just what is wanted“Rascally” behavior, such as turning the lights out in the hall happened just before the class on student code violation consequences!The session on the kinds of plagiarism was followed by instances of plagiarism by the same students. Applying the consequences gets the message acrossIt also conveys the message, not everyone gets a trophyIntegrating assignments with requirements to use specific technologies such as Georgia View, corrects their (often incorrect) technological pretentionsSlide13

Technologies to open the classroomScenarios of possible student code violations were assigned to a Blackboard discussion by students in groupsAn instructor blog allowed the instructors to share best practices and test banksStudents had to use their Banner accounts and the SGC web site to produce the transcript and program maps that they used to craft a graded schedule of practical value to their futureStudents completed a Google form to vote for diversity films to see and reviewSlide14

Three forms of AssessmentThe learning outcomes for the common reader (“To Kill a Mockingbird,” now “Maus”) was used to assess all first-semester sectionsThe incidence of Academic probation in spring 2012 for fall 2011 students was compared with the identical cohort the year beforeA possible negative correlation between the distribution of A’s in SGCO 1000 and Academic probation status the next semester was exploredSlide15

Common Reader AssessmentThe essays on two questions related to the book were assessed:1. Students will be able to define, in their own words, “prejudice” and identify/discuss three specific examples from the novel.2. Students will be able to define, in their own words, “civility” and identify/discuss three specific examples from the novel.14 of 25 sections reported. The target was that 70% or more of the students would score a 6 or higher on the grading rubric for both questions. The result: 179 of 284 students assessed achieved a 6 or higher on both questions. Three sections scored above 80% and three scored below 50%, suggesting sections with widely different degrees of rigor.Slide16

Two-Year Academic Probation Status2010-2011 (No comprehensive SGCO 1000) 254 of 912 first semester students in fall 2010 were on AP in spring 2011 (28%)2011-2012 (SGCO 1000 for FTFT students) 227 of 1019 first semester student in fall 2011 were on AP in spring 2012 (22%)Disaggregating the impact of SGCO 1000 is difficult since all components of StAR for FTFT were introduced at the same time asSGCO 1000Slide17

AP-Bound students and SGCO 1000 Grade Distribution: A Correlation?The possibility of hyperbolic discounting raises the questionThe incidence of AP from students exiting sections of SGCO 1000 with high D, F, W rates was compared with the incidence of AP of students from sections with high percentages of A’sOne might have expected any number of possible outcomes, from low AP rates for the former (because of early warning) to high AP rates for the latter (because of misleading success rates from grade inflators)Remember that the student populations were randomly selectedSlide18

Actual Results from 2011-2012AP Rates for Sections where less than 20% of the students received A’s:Subsequent AP Rate #APs #students # and Percentage of students with A’s 27% 68 254 34/13%AP Rates for Sections where 20-50% of the students received A’s: Subsequent AP Rate #AP’s #students # and Percentage of students with A’s

24%

50 208 73/35%

AP Rates for Sections where more than 50% of the students received A’s:

Subsequent AP Rate #AP’s #students # and Percentage of students with A’s

14%

45 320 210/65%Slide19

Actual Results from 2011-2012: Tentative ConclusionsA generous distribution of A’s in a given section always preceded a smaller incidence of AP for those students the next semester than for students in section with the highest percentages of D’s , F’s and W’s.The question of whether the grades were or were not merited probably may be irrelevantIt does not explain the relative success of poorer students in the same section and seems undermined by the difference in levels of experience/rigor by instructorsIf the latter is irrelevant, hyperbolic discounting and its importance to FYE programs is suggestedSlide20

The Seven Modules will now be reviewed