The University of Texas at Brownsville KNOWLEDGE KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES. STEM Learning Communities End of the Year Report Sponsored by Title V Presented by:

The University of Texas at Brownsville

KNOWLEDGE KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES.

STEM Learning Communities End of the Year Report

Sponsored by Title V

Presented by:

Oralia De los Reyes, Ph.D.Director of Title V

Michele Hansen, Ph.D.External Evaluators from IUPUI


PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

– Project Goals – Program Results by Grant Objectives

– 1) Professional Development– 2) Learning Communities– 3) Integration of Technology

– 4) Intervention for Math Readiness– Conclusions and Implications

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE TO:– Offer Professional Development– Institutionalize three High Impact Educational

Practices: Learning Communities, First Year Seminar and Service Learning Components

– Establish a Culture of Evidence– Maximize use of Blackboard Outcomes System


PROJECT GOALS

• Restructure curricula and academic support to achieve improved SLO’s• Implement a culture of evidence that identifies and

aligns best practices for SLO’s• Study the effects of redesigned curriculum and

assessment measures in STEM learning communities

TARGET POPULATIONS • Students in STEM fields

• Increase the number of students interested in STEM fields

• Increase the success rate of students pursuing STEM fields

• Faculty• Increase the number of faculty who integrate

instructional innovations for improved SLO’s• Increase the use of assessment of SLO’s to guide

curricula improvements


Title V Objectives I. To centralize a comprehensive faculty development program

to encourage faculty to integrate instructional course innovations for improved learning outcomes

II. To provide structured, integrated learning communities (LCs) for students pursuing STEM fields

III. To integrate the use of technology into course redesign and assessment of student learning outcomes to guide curricular improvements based on evidence.


Comprehensive Evaluation Plan Designed to Address The Following:

1. Has the centralized, comprehensive faculty development program encouraged faculty to integrate instructional course innovations for improved learning outcomes? (Related to Objective 1)

2. In what ways have the structured, integrated learning communities (LCs) for STEM students and intrusive support interventions made distinguishable impacts on student learning and academic success outcomes? (Related to Objective 2)

3. To what extent have faculty integrated the use of technology into course redesign and assessment of student learning outcomes to guide curricular improvements based on evidence? (Related to Objective 3).


Summative and Formative Evaluation: • Annual Faculty Survey• Student and Faculty Focus Groups • Student Academic Achievement • Retention and Graduation Rates • Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) • Attitudes Toward Science Assessment Instrument (ATSI) • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)• Course Embedded Assessment - Actual Student Work (papers and

assignments designed to assess critical thinking and communication skills) • Blackboard Outcomes Systems- Program & Course Level Assessment


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

REDESIGN COURSES

COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS 2009 2010 2011 SPRING FALL SPRING FALL SPRING FALL TOTAL

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS 1 5 5 15 6 2 34COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY 1 2 4 7 1 0 15TOTAL 2 7 9 22 7 2 49

Source: Professional Development Database, compiled by Title V, Fall 2011.

CATEGORY NUMBER OF WORKSHOPS DUPLICATED HEADCOUNTAssessment 38 173Technology 18 88Miscellaneous 7 39

New Faculty Orientation 5 30

Student Support 3 27Teaching Strategies 9 21Integration 3 11Total 83 389Unduplicated headcount 134


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT* Before Reorganization

COLLEGE FULL TIME FACULTY (FALL 2011) GOAL YEAR 1 AUG 2008 - SEP

2009 YEAR 1 GOAL YEAR 2 OCT 2009 - SEP 2010 YEAR 2 GOAL YEAR 3 OCT 2010 - SEP

2011 YEAR 3

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY 96 EXCEEDED 23 EXCEEDED 29 EXCEEDED 22

10% 19% 10% 24% 10% 23%

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS 136 EXCEEDED 43 EXCEEDED 52 EXCEEDED 5010% 33% 10% 40% 10% 37%

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 40 EXCEEDED 11 EXCEEDED 11 EXCEEDED 215% 39% 5% 39% 5% 53%

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 77 EXCEEDED 21 EXCEEDED 14 EXCEEDED 205% 30% 5% 20% 5% 26%

SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES *53 EXCEEDED 16 EXCEEDED 16 5% 30% 5% 30%

COLLEGE OF NURSING 33

EXCEEDED 145% 42%

COLLEGE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES AND HEALTH PROFESSIONS 36 EXCEEDED 7

5% 19%COLLEGE OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL STUDIES *39 EXCEEDED 15 EXCEEDED 12 5% 38% 5% 30%

UNDUPLICATED HEADCONT 129 134 134

DUPLICATED HEADCOUNT 639 529 389

STAFF 36 68 49

TOTAL WORKSHOPS OFFERED 53 35 83

Source: Professional Development Database, compiled by Title V, Fall 2011.


Annual Faculty Survey • The UTB/TSC Annual Faculty Survey was

designed to assess: • Participation in professional development activities, • How faculty spend their time inside and outside the

classroom, • Pedagogical strategies faculty are using to engage

students, • Use of technology and assessment planning,• How faculty perceive institutional priorities.


Faculty Survey Design • The Foundations Of Excellence In The

First College Year Project Faculty Survey, the Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey and the goals of the Title V evaluation plans were used as guides to develop the survey.


Annual Faculty Survey Results • The survey was administered to 615 Faculty

members in spring 2011. • 277 responded and completed the survey.• The response rate was 45%.


Faculty Professional Development ParticipationProfessional Development Engaged in Past Year Offered by CTL: N Yes % Yes

Internal or National Experts 116 42%

Blackboard Management Systems Outcomes Platform 95 34%

Technology Integration 95 34%

Technology Supported Teaching Support 71 26%Clubs 46 17%Paragraph Writing 48 17%Brown Bag Lunches 42 15%Summer Institute (for QEP and Title V) 37 13%

Summer Institute (annual teaching institute for PT faculty) 31 11%

Use of CTL Classroom 31 11%

Communities of Practice Participation 26 9%Donut Saturdays 22 8%Twilight Events 15 5%


Overall Faculty Satisfaction With Professional Development at UTB/TSC

N %Satisfied 26 9%Very satisfied 184 66%Neutral 36 13%Very Dissatisfied 13 5%Dissatisfied 18 7%Total 154 100 %


Using Assignments To Improve General Education Outcomes

Note: N/A removed from analyses N=227

How often have you developed the following assessments that assess students’…

% Often or Very Often

Critical Thinking Levels 75%Communication Skills 69%Writing Skills 65%Information Literacy 63%Scientific Reasoning 47%


Faculty Who Participated in Title V Summer Institute were Significantly More Likely to Improve Student

Learning through… • Redesigned existing course• Integrated assignments that require students to apply

knowledge and skills learned in other courses• Assignments that assess students' critical thinking levels• Assignments that assess students' communication skills• Rubrics for assessing assignments

– Based on independent samples test results p<.05– Participating N=37 and Not Participating N=220


LEARNING COMMUNITIES


STUDENTS ENROLLED IN STEM LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Fall 2009 Pilot Spring 2010 Pilot Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011

1425

237

171

212

Source: Learning Communities Student Tracking Database, compiled by Title V, Fall 2011.


LEARNING COMMUNITY STUDENTSBY COLLEGE, N=544

Source: Datatel Database, Management and Reporting Office, compiled by Title V, Fall 2011.

40%

23%

10%

8%

5%

5%

5%5%

College of Science, Math, and TechnologyCollege of Liberal ArtsUndeclaredAA.GENCollege of Nursing College of EducationCollege of Biomedical Studies and Health ProfessionsSchool of Business

CSMT

CLA


PERFORMANCE MEASURES: LC STUDENTS’ RETENTION BY COHORT FALL 2009 TO FALL 2011

Pilots

UTBFT Freshman

Fall ‘09 to Fall ‘10

Retention 55.4%


CONTROL AND COMPARISON GROUPS

• The CONTROL GROUP was drawn from a database provided by the office of Institutional Effectiveness and was defined by random selection of non LC students...• with same classification• taking same courses in the same semester

• The COMPARISON GROUP was drawn from 2009 FoE Freshmen Cohort, DFWI Grade Distribution Report, published by the office of Data Management and Reporting, Fall 2010


FALL 2010-SPRING 2011 LC STUDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS

Source: Learning Communities Student Tracking Database, compiled by Title V, Fall 2011.

LC’s Control Group

Age Average 19 20

GenderFemale Male

53% 47%

51% 49%

Ethnicity

HispanicWhite Non HispanicAsian/Pacific IslanderBlack Non HispanicOther

93% 3% 2%1%1%

95%3%1%0%1%

GPA Average 2.48 2.21

Classification

FreshmanSophomoreJuniorSenior

76%18%4%2%

NOTE: Control Group was defined by Student Classification and Non LC students taking same courses during the same semester


GRADE DISTRIBUTION: FALL 2010, n=526

Comparison Group Source: Office of Data Management and Reporting Database, Fall 2011

A B C % of ABC D F W I NG % of DFIW

LEARNING COMMUNITY

13.1% 24.1% 27.4% 64.6% 17.7% 9.1% 8.4% 0.2% 0.0% 35.4%

CONTROL GROUP

0.089353612167300

5

0.209125475285171

0.268060836501901

0.566539923954373

0.182509505703422

0.186311787072243

0.055133079847908

8

0 0.009505703422053

23

0.433460076045627

5.0%

15.0%

25.0%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

13.1%

24.1%27.4%

64.6%

17.7%

9.1% 8.4%

0.2% 0.0%

35.4%

8 pts.


GRADE DISTRIBUTION: FALL 2010, PRE-CALC, n=21



LEARNING COM-MUNITY

19.0% 42.9% 23.8% 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

CONTROL GROUP 0.2380952380952

38

0.0952380952380

953

0.3809523809523

81

0.7142857142857

14

0.1904761904761

91

0.0952380952380

953

0 0 0 0.2857142857142

86

5.0%

15.0%

25.0%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

85.0%

19.0%

42.9%

23.8%

85.7%

14.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

14.3%

14 pts.

33 pts.



LEARNING COMMU-NITY

13.8% 22.4% 30.9% 67.1% 17.1% 4.6% 10.5% 0.7% 0.0% 32.9%

CONTROL GROUP 0.0723684210526

317

0.25 0.25 0.5723684210526

31

0.1381578947368

42

0.25 0.0263157894736

842

0 0.0131578947368

421

0.4276315789473

68

5.0%

15.0%

25.0%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

13.8%

22.4%

30.9%

67.1%

17.1%

4.6%

10.5%

0.7% 0.0%

32.9%

GRADE DISTRIBUTION: ENGL 1301-FALL 2010, n=152


10 pts.

6 pts.

20 pts.


A B C % of A B C D F W % of DFIW0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

15%

23%

27%

65%

17%

12%

6%

35%

15%

22% 23%

60%

12%

19%

9%

40%

LC'sCOMPARISON GROUP

GRADES1415 grade records for LC's vs. 4945 grade records for Comparison Group for 17 Courses

Perc

enta

ge

GRADE DISTRIBUTION: FALL 2010 AND SPRING 2011

Comparison Group Source: DFWI Grade Distribution of FY2009 Freshmen Cohort (Fall 2008, Spring and Summer 2009) for FoE, Office of Data Management and Reporting, Spring 2010


HIGH PERFORMANCE LC’SFALL 2010-SPRING 2011: COLLEGE ALGEBRA


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

8%

21%

28%

57%

10%

21%

12%

43%

7%

17%21%

45%

16%

27%

12%

55%

LC'sComparison Group

GRADES119 grade records for LC's vs. 799 grade records for Comparison Group

Perc

enta

ge

12 pts.



HIGH PERFORMANCE LC’SFALL 2010-SPRING 2011: CALCULUS I


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

10%

35%40%

85%

15%

0% 0%

15%

21%24%

12%

57%

24%

17%

2%

43%



Perc

enta

ge

28 pts.

28 pts.11 pts.



HIGH PERFORMANCE LC’SFALL 2010-SPRING 2011: CHEMISTRY I


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

9%

29%26%

64%

13% 11% 13%

36%

4%

26%23%

53%

22%

8%

17%

47%



Perc

enta

ge

11 pts.



Classroom Community Scale (CCS) (Rovai, 2002)

• The 20-item Scale measures sense of community in a learning environment.

• Research results have suggested that the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) is a valid and reliable measure of classroom community and learning.


CCS Results: Fall 2011How Did you Hear About the Learning Communities

N %More than one source 38 25%Blackboard 37 24%Peers 28 18%Scorpiontation 26 17%No answer 9 6%The Collegian 4 3%Fliers 4 3%Stand around campus 3 2%Academic Advisor 2 1%Total 154 100 %

N=154


CCS Results: Fall 2011 (Rank Ordered by Mean)1=Strongly Disagree – 5=Strongly Agree

Mean Std. DeviationTutor appeared to have knowledge of the subject. 4.27 0.87Tutor was able to speak clearly and write legibly 4.21 0.90Tutor was helpful and effective in helping me with course material. 4.08 0.99Tutor sessions were organized and clear, and explanation were understandable. 4.02 0.96I feel that I am given ample opportunities to learn. 4.01 0.91I feel that I am encouraged to ask questions. 4.00 0.92I feel connected to others in this course. 3.97 0.96I feel isolated in this course (REVERSE CODED). 3.92 1.01

N=154


CCS Results Continued: Fall 2011

Mean Std. Deviation

I feel confident that others will support me. 3.81 0.97

I feel that I can rely on others in this course. 3.76 1.04

I do not feel a spirit of community (REVERSE CODED) 3.72 1.05

I feel that it is hard to get help when I have a question (REVERSE CODED) 3.69 1.06

I feel that my educational needs are not being met (REVERSE CODED) 3.67 1.11My experience in the linked courses made me more comfortable meeting with my instructors outside of class. 3.67 1.06

I feel that I receive timely feedback. 3.55 0.99

I feel reluctant to speak openly (REVERSE CODED) 3.23 1.10

I feel uneasy exposing gaps in my understanding (REVERSE CODED) 3.09 0.98

I feel that this course results only in modest learning (REVERSE CODED) 2.82 1.00

I feel that members of this course depend on me. 2.72 1.00

N=154


Learning Communities Student Survey

• Designed to assess students’ satisfaction levels with their experiences in learning community courses.

• Administered Fall 2010, Spring 2011, and Fall 2011• Responses on Likert-Type Scale where 1=Very Little,

to 5=Very Much • N = 321 Students


Learning Community Experience Satisfaction

N %Satisfied 110 35%Very satisfied 97 31%Neutral 84 27%Very Dissatisfied 11 4%Dissatisfied 13 4%Total 315 100 %


LC Survey Top Rated ItemsMean Std. Deviation

Formed one or more friendships that I will maintain after the semester. 3.83 1.14Exchanged ideas with students whose views are different from my own. 3.63 1.06Became more effective in analyzing and understanding readings in essaysm articles, and textbooks. 3.60 0.99Understood connections between different disciplines and courses. 3.59 0.95Became more effective with communicating my thoughts in speaking. 3.57 0.96Developed a better understanding of complex real world social problems and issues. 3.57 0.98

N=312 to 315


LC Survey Results Continued…

Mean Std. Deviation

Actively discussed complex issues and ideas.3.44 1.00

Discussed ideas from the LC courses with peers outside of class.3.42 1.08

Became more effective with communicating my thoughts in writing.3.42 0.99

Applied what I learned in one course to another course in my learning community. 3.39 1.01Applied knowledge gained in learning community courses in service to broader community and social issues. 3.39 0.97Made connections with faculty outside of class.

3.24 1.11Discussed connections between any LC courses with faculty.

3.10 1.12

N=314


Learning Community Experiences • 58% Participated in a Campus Activity or Event

Outside of Class • 43% Participated in an Activity or Event in the

Community• 40% Participated in a Community Service or

Volunteer Activity


National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) • The NSSE assesses the extent to which undergraduate

students are involved in educational practices empirically linked to high levels of learning and development.

• Random sample of first-year students and seniors.• Oversampled first-year students and administered to

students in the LCs in the spring.• Strength of NSSE is that it is aligned with many of the Title

V learning objectives and allows for comparisons with internal peers (UTB/TSC students not enrolled in LCs), peer institutions, and the NSSE national sample.


NSSE Items Significantly Different (p. < .05)

Item Learning Community

Mean SD Effect Size

Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources

Yes 3.21 .89 .18

No 2.89 .88

Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions

Yes 2.98 .84 .23

No 2.49 .88

N=54 to 165


NSSE Items Significantly Different (p. < .10)Item Learning

CommunityMean SD Effect Size

Worked with classmates OUTSIDE OF CLASS to prepare class assignments

Yes 2.67 1.05 .18

No 2.31 1.00

Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

Yes 2.55 1.10 .15

No 2.21 1.10

Coursework emphasized: APPLYING theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

Yes 3.15 .88 .12

No 2.93 .96

Institutional contribution: Using computing and information technology

Yes 3.45 .84 .12

No 3.24 .88

N=49 to 164


LC Student Focus Groups • A total of 9 students were recruited to voluntarily

participate in an hour long semi-structured interview regarding learning communities.

• The interview was tape-recorded and subsequently content analyzed.

• The qualitative results were analyzed for content and coded into individual thematic theme categories.


Importance of Scorpion-tation/Orientation• In Scorpion-tation they had the different booths and the

people... Looked pretty interesting… They explained to me like the different classes and having two difficult classes there would be offered tutoring -- I think that helped a lot.”

• “I was taking both so it was already there when I was at Scorpion-tation because I know I needed to take Bio and History… And they were like OK this is a linked course you want to take it? And I was like – Yeah Sure!”

• “Mine was through Orientation as well. My wife suggested – so she suggested I take the learning communities.”


High Praise to the Tutoring Support• “They (tutors) explained everything. They had patience.”• “They helped to introduce good study habits.”• “The tutors they really helped in helping us become individual(s) off of them. Like

they kind of helped us to get our sea legs you could say.”• “Chem. and Pre-Cal. Their pretty hard classes, and even Bio, knowing that you have

the option for tutors and knowing that there’s a set time for you to study…. I think that helps a lot.”

• “At the time when you would go (tutoring) – they would always go over a chapter they would give you like an overview on every chapter. That was really helpful too. And they would always ask us like if you guys want during lecture -- write questions that you want to know-- bring it to the tutoring session -- and we’ll answer them there.”

• “Linked actually makes it more easier since the tutoring is there. If you take them separately having like that time setup for studying makes it more difficult.”


Improving Critical Thinking • “I also liked the fact that I had to look at it through two different

philosophies. I mean the philosophy of English and Biology. I felt that it helped with a deeper understanding. It just reinforced it.”

• “Seeing them spending more time with both of them (Chemistry and Math). You’re understanding more. You’re not just understanding Chemistry better your understanding Chemistry and Math.”

• “I don’t know if this one counts but the big thing that framed the beginning part of our semester –was - What is science? What do we consider science? And what is considered science? And we basically went through the scientific process as well which eventually led to us forming our own opinion of what science (is).”


Developing a Sense of Community• “For me I think for both classes we had the same classmates… and I know that’s a

lot of fun because you form like a little community amongst each other. So once you get that confidence of like knowing everybody for both classes you feel more free to like ask more questions or ask each other questions that we don’t understand.”

• “This is my first semester so like I didn’t know anybody and just being in the learning community and meeting new people and having them there with me - helping me… Instead of those classes that I didn’t have with other students that I know. I think it just helped me more.”

• “Having the same students and actually going to the other classes with those students was extremely helpful. And I’m a pretty open person but in other classes you could see people shut down because they’re afraid…because they don’t know their peers. And so they’re afraid to ask questions.”


TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND ASSESSMENT


INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY

Use of Technology Facts:• 23 faculty are using tablet PC in their

classrooms to grade papers and engage students

• 330 TurningPoint clickers are being used by 17 faculty in 29 sections

• COW for Mathematics LC’s and tutorials 10 sections

• Mobile Computers for faculty trainings 83 workshops

• Development of ESO’s and SLO’s Blackboard Outcomes templates

• Trained 101 faculty on Technology related topics

• A group of faculty, the “Select 40” were trained by Blackboard and piloted the Blackboard Content Management 9.1 Service Pak in Spring 2011

• 30 faculty got Laser Pointers/Podium remote controls


Annual Faculty Survey Results: Integration of Technology

Note: N/A removed from analyses N=227

To what extent do you use the following teaching methods in your courses with undergraduates?

% Often or Very Often

Technology (e.g. web, DVD, computers, Podcasts, clickers, digital technology, etc.)

68%

Electronic quizzes with immediate feedback in class 31%

Blackboard Management System's Outcomes Platform 28%

Electronic portfolios 15%


Annual Faculty Survey Results: Supporting a Culture of Evidence

N=277, Note: N/A removed from analyses

UTB/TSC does a good job: % Agree or Strongly Agree

Providing a good general education for all students 60%Providing a clear curricular plan for students 55%Systematically assessing students’ learning outcomes. 50%Using what we learn from those assessments to strengthen courses. 44%Creating a culture of evidence to guide curricular reform 41%Systematically assessing students' experiences. 39%


Attitudes Toward Science Inventory (ASTI) - Gogolin (1992)

• Pre-Post Design in Learning Communities Fall 2010 • 118 Students Responded• Measures student perception of science teacher, anxiety

toward science, value of science in society, self-concept in science, enjoyment of science, and motivation in science

• 48 Item Instrument • Likert-Type Scale 1=Strongly Disagree to 6=Strongly Agree


Significant Results and Largest Differences (based on paired samples t-test)

Adjustment to college life

Confident making argument about science

Would like to teach science

Important know science get good job

Confident feeling about science

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00

PostPre


WRITING ASSESSMENT FALL 2010, N= 693

01234

2.5 2.2 2.1 1.92.52.7 2.5 2.4 2.2

2.7

Pre-DiagnosticPost-Diagnostic

0

1

2

3

4

2.31.9 1.8 1.6

2.51.9 1.7 2 1.9 2.2

Pre-DiagnosticPost-Diagnostic

STEM LC’s with Peer Mentoring and Tutoring

4 Coursesn= 60 papers

LC without with-out Support Svcs.

3 Coursesn=75 papers


INTERVENTIONS TO INCREASE MATH READINESS


SUMMER 2010 PRE-CALCULUS BOOT CAMP

No Math College Alge-bra

Pre-Calculus Calculus I Calculus II

SPRING 2011

0.347826086956522

0.0434782608695652

0.173913043478261

0.391304347826087

0.0434782608695652

FALL 2010

0.130434782608696

0.173913043478261

0.608695652173914

NaN NaN

5.0%15.0%25.0%35.0%45.0%55.0%65.0%N %

Total Students Participating 32 100%Pre and Post Test 23 72%Tested out of Pre-Calc 4 17%Increased Test Scores between 130 and 200%

4 17%

Increased Test Scores between 50 and 94%

9 39%

Increased Test Scores by 50% 6 26%

12 of 15 students (80%) were successful in the course (fall’10)

NO MATH A B C D FFALL 2010 8 4 5 3 3 0SPRING 2011 3 10 5 3 1 1TOTAL 13 14 10 6 4 1

27% 29% 21% 12% 8% 2%

18 of 20 students (78%) were successful in the Spring

Math Enrollment after BootCamp


COLLEGE ALGEBRA

PRECALCULUS CALCULUS I NO MATH0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

CoursesSt

uden

ts 23%20%

17%

40%

SUMMER 2011 PRE-CALCULUS BOOT CAMP

Math Enrollment after BootCamp, n=35

N %

Total Students Participating 35 100%

Pre and Post Test 22 63%

Tested out of Pre-Calc 10 45%

Increased Test Scores over 100% 5 23%


6 27%



BASIC MATH

INTTRO ALGEBRA

COLLEGE ALGEBRA

MATH LIB-ERAL ARTS

PRECALCU-LUS

CALCULUS I NO MATH

Fall 2011

1 1 14 1 3 1 13

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

Stud

ents

SUMMER 2011 COLLEGE ALGEBRA BOOT CAMP

Math Enrollment after BootCamp, n=34

41%38%

9%

N %

Total Students Participating 34 100%

Pre and Post Test 22 65%

Tested out of College Algebra 7 32%

Increased Test Scores over 100% 3 14%


7 32%



CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS


WHAT IS GOING WELL…

• Faculty are participating in PD initiatives and

they are finding it useful.

• Tutoring

• LC students are building connections and

community

• LCs are improving retention rates and GPAs

• LC students are developing communication

and critical thinking skills

• Faculty are integrating technology in their

classroom to improve teaching and learning.


WHAT IS NEXT…

• Find ways to institutionalize effective initiatives

• Tutoring, Continue LC, and Expand Math Boot Camp

• What are ongoing sources of evidence that are sustainable and useful in decision

making

• Capitalizing on Advising and other departments to help us informed students about

effective initiatives

• Making sure that progress on retention and academic achievement translates into

degree attainment in STEM fields/graduation

• Continue to measure progress in student degree attainment

• Sustaining interventions to improve math readiness because math is a impediment

to attaining a STEM degree.


Q&A

Documents

The University of Texas at Brownsville KNOWLEDGE KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES. STEM Learning Communities End of the Year Report Sponsored by Title V Presented by: