18
Engaging students: encouraging success Helen Johnston, Syed Mahfuzul Aziz, C. Yalçın Kaya & Diana Quinn

Helen Johnston et al 2008

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Session A - RR5-09

Citation preview

Page 1: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Engaging students: encouraging successHelen Johnston, Syed Mahfuzul Aziz, C. Yalçın Kaya & Diana Quinn

Page 2: Helen Johnston et al 2008

New start in Engineering: 2008 at Mawson LakesA new common first year program for Civil,

Mechanical and Electrical Engineering students

• broadened access: Associate degree and non-traditional students

• new courses and increased focus on experiential and project –based learning

• new Teaching Team including– a first year academic director

– all course coordinators

– Learning and Teaching Unit staff: learning advisers, academic developer, online adviser

– Library staff

2

Page 3: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Students’ first 6 weeks at uni

• no bells, no rules• parents in the dark: what they don’t know

about they can’t worry about• new friends, new loves• a job - luvly money

– Another shift? sure, more luvly money• a class: not today thanks!• the Maths quiz? I’ll do next week’s• Census date: OOPS!

3

Page 4: Helen Johnston et al 2008

While it’s a given that programs need to offer

• engaging curriculum

• good teaching

• early assessment

• multiple opportunities to succeed

Students who don’t attend class and/or complete early assessment tasks are unlikely to hear their lecturers’ and tutors’ advice.

4

Page 5: Helen Johnston et al 2008

So there’s a communication and support dilemma: how do we reach students?

The ‘Supporting students at risk’ strategy is • an academically focussed intervention • clearly linked assessment

SSAR offers • early & explicit advice to students to join the

main game i.e. their academic program.

SSAR involves• the Engineering First Year Teaching Team• course coordinators in target courses• Learning Advisers in the Learning and Teaching

Unit5

Page 6: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Academic success is a powerful means of ensuring

• student engagement

• student persistence

6

Page 7: Helen Johnston et al 2008

7

Page 8: Helen Johnston et al 2008

SSAR target courses, March – July ‘081. Sustainable Engineering Practice (SEP):

– an introduction to the profession and how it is practiced within a sustainable context

– develops communication, teamwork and project planning using problem-based learning

2. Mathematical Methods for Engineers (MME1) :– includes topics in calculus in preparation for Mathematical

Methods for Engineers 2. It also includes an introduction to the mathematical software MATLAB

– first year maths is historically challenging: broadened intake: potential for attrition

– attendance and participation in assessment are crucial

3. Enrolment: 200+

8

Page 9: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Course expectations

SEP• A Class contact

– Weekly lectures (1 hr)

– Weekly tutorials (2 hr)

Assessment – 3 tasks

– Individual report, 15%

– Student portfolio, 45%

– Group project report and presentation, 40%

MME1Class contact• lecture (2 hr)• Tutorial (1 hr)• Computer practical (1hr)

Assessment • Assignment 1                          10%• Assignment 2                            10%• Team project                             10%• Tutorial Quizzes (10x1%)        10%• MATLAB test                            10%• Exam                                        50%

9

Page 10: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Two points of contact

Stage 1 lists: before Census date• SEP: based on attendance• MME1: based on attendance and

assessment performance in 2 quizzes in weeks 2 & 3

Stage 2 lists• SEP: based on Assignment 1• MME1: based on continuing quizzes and

Assignment 1

10

Page 11: Helen Johnston et al 2008

How did students respond?

Most students were pleased that someone was taking an interest in them.

Main student responses in late March:• struggling (27)

– with content– with time management, often work related• there’s no problem (15)

• attendance lists must be wrong• everything is fine

• withdrawal a possibility (4)– work-study clash

11

Page 12: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Did students contacted in the SSAR process succeed? Many on the first lists did not stay and

complete the course. Some– had already withdrawn by late March– withdrew before Census date– took leave of absence during the semester– withdrew after Census date.

For this paper we examined the final grades of students who completed the course and either passed or failed.

We have not yet summarised the final status of all listed students.

12

Page 13: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Summary of results by course

SEP• relatively few students were referred and contacted• 14 of those contacted completed the course• 11 Passed: all new in 2008; stage of contact may be not

relevant • 3 Failed: 1 new in 2008, 2 Continuing

MME1• Many more referred and contacted overall• 76 of those contacted completed the course• 18 Passed: stage of contact seems relevant, the majority

contacted in Stage 1• 58 Failed: 39 new in 2008,19 Continuing

13

Page 14: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Final grades in SEP

SEP (students New in 2008 or Continuing) N= 14

Point of contact

Stage 1 list Stage 1 & 2 lists Stage 2 list

Grades 2008 Cont 2008 Cont 2008 Cont

Pass 5 0 1 0 5 0

Fail 0 2 0 0 1 0

Totals 5 2 1 0 6 0

14

Page 15: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Final grades in MME1

MME 1 (students New in 2008 or Continuing) N= 76

Point of contact

Stage 1 list Stage 1 & 2 lists Stage 2 list

Grades 2008 Cont 2008 Cont 2008 Cont

Pass 9 0 0 2 3 4

Fail 4 4 7 9 28 6

Totals 13 4 7 11 31 10

15

Page 16: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Implications

SSAR contact aims to provide information and support to commencing students

SSAR • seems to be most effective in late March, Stage 1

• students (SEP and MME1) appreciative of contact

• students were often successful

But SSAR • seems to be more effective among commencing than

continuing students

• so modified or additional approaches may be needed to support continuing students

16

Page 17: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Other outcomes?

• SSAR provides useful insights into the student experience– commencing students find value in SSAR

– successful students reported acting on advice.

• In MME1 early contact was based on both attendance and quiz participation– MME1 proved as difficult as expected

– quiz participation was crucial to success

– by mid-semester students who were not passing were unlikely to pass the course

– feedback from SSAR supported ongoing course-review by the Course Coordinator

• more support is now provided for under-prepared students

17

Page 18: Helen Johnston et al 2008

Finally

• This small review of SSAR in Engineering– has prompted further study of program and

course specific questions• role and value of student quizzes in learning in MME1?• supporting continuing students?

– has raised questions about how SSAR might be used to inform teaching and learning

• how can SSAR better meet student and course needs?• how might we improve our data collection and evaluation

processes?• What is the value in collecting longitudinal data in courses of

known difficulty e.g. MME1?

18