Impact on completion

Proposal activities are strategically linked to Complete College Georgia. The impact on GPC and the USG is a targeted improvement in completion rates of existing college student populations with historically low completion rates in STEM including remedial, low-income, African American, Hispanic, part-time students and adult learners.

Potential lessons to be learned

Potential lessons to be learned are that CLI participants will outperform non-CLI participants especially among targeted populations; and, participant attendance will have an impact on student success.  Student facilitators will report an increase in self-efficacy and faculty mentors will utilize better strategies for inclusion and engagement among STEM students.

Concept Description

A. Overview: As an access institution, Georgia Perimeter College typically hosts the largest freshman and sophomore enrollments in Georgia as well as a large number of students declaring a STEM discipline as a major.  Since fall 2011, the number of students choosing a STEM major at GPC has increased from 12.9% to 20.9% in fall 2014. Many of these students are from traditionally underrepresented populations in STEM, are first generation college students and often come from low-wealth backgrounds.  While GPC has worked very hard to increase the number of students receiving a STEM degree and/or transferring in a STEM discipline to a 4-year institution, these numbers continue to remain low.  Furthermore, the number of students persisting in a STEM major and/or successfully passing gateway courses has also remained low.  While there are numerous reasons as to why these numbers persist, academic unpreparedness remains at the forefront.  As Terenzini (1996) points out, first-generation students enter college with weaker cognitive skills in reading, math and critical thinking.

The goal of proposal activities is to decrease the number of DFWs in four courses at the GPC Decatur Campus.  Baseline data show that students at GPC-Decatur have high DFW rates in Chemistry and Math.  Additionally, of the 342 GPC-Decatur students who have declared a STEM major, 278 or 81.3% are from underrepresented populations in STEM. The targeted courses for intervention are:

• CHEM 1211 – Principles of Chemistry I
• CHEM 1212 – Principles of Chemistry II
• MATH 1113 – Pre-Calculus
• MATH 2431 – Calculus I

Students learn best when they are actively involved and engaged in the learning process.  In educational environments, study groups are often formed to gain better insight on course topics through collaborative efforts. Collaborative learning is defined as the grouping and/or pairing of students for the purpose of achieving an academic goal (Gokale, 1995).  Davis reported that regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer, than when the same content is presented in other more traditional instructional formats (Davis, 1993). 

Supporters of collaborative learning suggest that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among group participants, but also helps to improve critical thinking skills.  The shared learning environment allows students to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, hence becoming critical thinkers (Gokale, 1995).  Research has shown that collaborative learning encourages the use of high-level cognitive strategies, critical thinking, and positive attitudes toward learning (Wan and Lin, 2006).  Further, it has been suggested that collaborative learning has a positive influence on student academic performance (Johnson and Johnson, 1994).

The project implements a Collaborative Learning Initiative (CLI) loosely based on the Academic Excellence Workshop (AEW) structure initially developed by Dr. Uri Treisman. Dr. Treisman developed the workshop structure at UC Berkeley after closely examining the difference in performance between Asian and African-American/Hispanic students in calculus (Hudspeth, 1990). By immersing himself in the lives of both groups, Dr. Treisman observed that the Asian students had integrated their academic and social lives and studying together was an integral component of their day. In contrast, the African American and Hispanic students were more often academic loners. Since the initial introduction of AEWs into academic programming, many schools have adopted the workshops and have seen an increase in the success rates of not only their minority students, but their STEM student population.

AEWs are group learning experiences that provide students with the opportunity to work collaboratively in a positive environment to achieve a high level of subject mastery. AEWs are unique because they not only involve students who lead the workshops but also faculty liaisons that develop the material which parallels the topics covered in class.  The workshops focus on advanced group-learning methods for technical concept mastery.  The AEW is designed to give students the opportunity to enhance their learning experience for a particular course. The student facilitator for an AEW is trained to develop exercises that foster debate on key elements that have generally given students difficulty and hindered the learning process. As a result of this interaction the students gain both a sense of connectedness and the development of their own learning community. 

Currently, the available opportunity for GPC-Decatur students to receive academic assistance outside the classroom is through the Learning and Tutoring Center (LTC).  In this environment a student meets with a tutor for fifteen minutes and if the student needs additional assistance, he/she must sign up again for another fifteen minute interval.  While this model works well for very specific questions, often STEM students need more time. CLI utilizes four components to effectively construct the experience which include the participant, the student facilitator, the faculty mentor and the CLI trainer.

Student Facilitators: The selection of the student facilitators is key.  Student facilitators are those who have previously taken the course, earned an A grade and have been recommended by a faculty member who has taught the student in one of his/her STEM courses.  The student facilitator is responsible for helping CLI participants maximize their academic performance, fostering a collegial environment that promotes independent thinking and collaborative learning and acting as ambassadors to promote STEM throughout the college.  The four student facilitators work closely with assigned faculty mentors to develop materials for the workshops and maintain weekly communication on the progress of students and implementation of the workshops.  

Faculty Mentors: The four faculty mentors are responsible for initiating and sustaining the CLI workshop.  Additionally, the mentor serves as a liaison and resource for the student facilitator.  Mentors provide reference material, suggest strategies for implementation, and advertise the workshops to colleagues within the department.  Throughout the course of the semester, the mentor maintains weekly discussion with the facilitator.

CLI Trainer: The trainer is responsible for working with facilitators and mentors to create a collaborative learning environment for participants.  The trainer assists mentors in identifying workshop topics, teaches the features of collaborative learning and provides them with tools to help workshop participants be successful.  The trainer engages facilitators and mentors in discourse on inclusion and learning styles.

The strengths of proposed CLI experiences lie in the potential to have a high impact on a large number of students and their cost effectiveness.  For example, a tutor in the LTC working 19 hours per week seeing 4 students in fifteen minute intervals can tutor on average approximately 76 students in one week.  However, a student facilitator working 10 hours per week seeing a group of 10 students per hour can assist 100 students per week. Consequently, over the course of a sixteen week semester a student facilitator can assist 384 more students than an individual tutor.  There is also a cost-savings factor in utilizing student facilitators; $1600 for a student facilitator and $3040 for an individual tutor which represents a difference of $1440 per semester. 

B. Impact and Lessons Learned:  The potential impact on student success is improved grades in the targeted course; improved retention rates in the major; and, an increase in transfer/graduation in the major.  Additional goals include empowering students to learn independently and gain the capacity to establish their own academic community that will be a resource while progressing through other STEM coursework. The potential lessons learned are:

• CLI participants will outperform non-CLI participants especially among targeted populations; and, participant attendance will be shown to have an impact on success
• Facilitators will report an increase in self-efficacy and a better appreciation of the discipline
• Faculty mentors will report an increase in understanding of inclusion and learning styles
• Insight on training faculty and students to create a collaborative learning experience for first and second year students
• Better engagement of first generation and underrepresented minority students in STEM disciplines 

Proposal activities are strategically linked to Complete College Georgia. The impact on GPC and the USG is a  targeted improvement in completion rates of existing college student populations with historically low completion rates including remedial, low-income, African American, Hispanic, part-time students and adult and military learners. 

Project Plan

Goals, objectives and deliverables associated with the project, with the ability to show initial results within 6-12 months.

The goal of the CLI workshops is to decrease the number of DFWs by 5% in fall 2015 and by 5% in spring 2016 in CHEM 1211 – Principles of Chemistry I, CHEM 1212 – Principles of Chemistry II, MATH 1113 – Pre-Calculus, MATH 2431 – Calculus I. The deliverables of the project include the following:

• CLI workshop materials inclusive of lesson plans, worksheets and workshops developed for identified courses
• A toolkit of materials that can be utilized by faculty and students at GPC as well as other USG institutions
• Faculty and students trained in creating and conducting CLI workshops

Detailed timeline of the project specific tasks, milestones, resources and personnel associated with the project.

Logic Model

Project Budget

Project Evaluation

Formative Assessment

To effectively evaluate the student progress while learning is taking place and the implementation of the CLI experience, proposal activities will utilize the following formative measures: GPC’s Early Alert System; the TutorTrac system; and, faculty mentor, student facilitator and participant qualitative feedback surveys.

GPC uses a robust early academic alert system designed as an intervention and retention tool used to identify factors early in the semester that may impact the overall performance of a student.  Via the Early Alert System, faculty members during the first five weeks of the semester submit early alerts for student concerns such as excessive absences, chronic lateness, missing or incomplete assignments, low test scores, etc. In spring 2014, reported alerts in STEM classes made up 54.5% of the total number of alerts generated.  Early alert data will be collected to determine the initial impact that workshops are having on participants. If participating students receive an alert in the workshop course, the workshop will be revised to better meet the needs of the students. 

An additional formative measure will be the number of students attending the workshops.  Data will be collected utilizing the TutorTrac system. TutorTrac is a web-based software system that records visits and reports on progress and grades earned in courses.  Data will be collected monthly and if workshop attendance is low, efforts will be taken to increase enrollment (i.e., advertisement, working with instructing faculty, etc.).

Qualitative feedback surveys will be utilized by the workshop participants, student facilitators and faculty mentors at the midpoint of the semester and then again at the end of the semester to assess CLI implementation. If the level of satisfaction is low, then efforts will be taken to improve satisfaction (i.e., content, teaching style, level of engagement, etc.).

Figure 5: CLI Evaluation Plan

Summative Assessment

The goal of proposal activities is to decrease by 5% the number of DWFs in fall 2015 and in spring 2016 in CHEM 1211, CHEM 1212, MATH 1113, and MATH 2431.  Summative data will be collected from the institutional Banner system during the months of December and May.  This measure will help to document progress toward meeting proposal goals.

APPENDIX

A. Baseline Data and Project Outcomes

B.  References

Terenzini, P., L. Springer, P. Yaeger, E. Pascarella, E. & A. Nora. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22.

Hudspeth, M. Catharine, Academic Excellence Workshops – Developing an Academic Community, (1990). California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.

Gokhale, A.  (1995). “Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking.” Journal of Technology Education 7, no. 1.

Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wang, S. and S. Lin. (2006). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning.  Computer and Human Behavior.

Johnson, R. T and D.W. Johnson. (1994). An Overview of collaborative learning.  Creativity and Collaborative Learning; Baltimore: Brookes Press. [Electronic Version]. http://www.campbell.edu/content/662/overviewpaper.html (Accessed June 2015).