1 / 15

Overview

Overview. Background Implementation of support initiative Methodology Evaluation Conclusions. A proactive intervention to support first year engineering students with non-typical mathematics backgrounds. Dr Ria Symonds – University of Nottingham. Background.

bradley-manning
Télécharger la présentation

Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview • Background • Implementation of support initiative • Methodology • Evaluation • Conclusions

  2. A proactive intervention to support first year engineering students with non-typical mathematics backgrounds Dr Ria Symonds – University of Nottingham

  3. Background • Engineering mathematics intake (~600 students) is dominated by students entering with a recent good pass at GCE A-level • Previously a parallel provision for about 20-40 students has also been available for students with more non-typical backgrounds • Nomination via engineering tutors • Availability of bi-weekly drop in sessions • Mathematical confidence, engagement and attainment of this cohort has been disappointing • Support initiative  Dual module approach

  4. Revised provision – outline objectives • Change to a single provision • Provide targeted support to enhance student learning / transition in tandem to main Engineering Mathematics module • Incorporate a ‘group tutorial’ based support • Incorporate ‘ guided learning’ to provide enhancement to student personal study time ( pre-requisites and underpinning )

  5. Implementation • Liaison with engineering departments • Selection of Postgraduate Student Teachers (PST’s) • Previous experience crucial • Training session • Development of Tutorial support • Diagnostic Test • VLE • Tutorial Sheets • Delivery and monitoring

  6. Methodology - barriers • Engineering departments were asked to nominate a small group of students to benefit from the support  39 students • Limited data for intake qualifications • Late arrival of nominations from engineering • Late registration of some students – e-mail problems • ‘Missed’ induction week / diagnostic test • Tutorials reduced to fortnightly in Spring Semester • Approx half the nominated students attended sessions

  7. Evaluation • Engaged motivated students? • Comparison of marks from three groups: • Proactive intervention students – received support • Proactive intervention students – did not receive support • Main cohort

  8. Evaluation – quantitative

  9. Evaluation – quantitative

  10. Evaluation – quantitative

  11. Evaluation - qualitative • Questionnaire handed out during the 1st and 10th teaching week of term. • How do the tutorials compare to your normal maths lecture/problem classes? “I get more attention and develop my maths.” “[The tutorials] tend to focus on the basics more before moving onto the advanced topics.” “They offer more explanation and time spent on a one to one basis.”

  12. Evaluation - qualitative • Questionnaire handed out during the 1st and 10th teaching week of term. • What aspects of the tutorials did you find particularly useful? “Exercises and explanation of each topic.” “The ability to ask questions too uncomfortable to ask the lecturer. Slower pace and firmer grounding of the points. Help available!” “Recapping in detail bits that have seemed vague in class.” “Being able to discuss the problem.”

  13. Evaluation - qualitative • Tutor feedback: “Experience in teaching and guiding students. Satisfaction of teaching someone something new and them understanding it and seeing them enjoy what they are doing.” “I feel more confident about leading tutorials in the future. It was also good getting to know the students… I really enjoyed being able to tailor the sessions to their needs.” “I had a good rapport with my working group and an opportunity to really help students that needed it”

  14. Conclusions • Provision established • Operational elements identified for enhancement • Increased engagement for PSTs in managing and delivering support to Engineering students • Effective transition to undergraduate learning in mathematics • Feedback from students encouraging Acknowledgement: Development work was supported by the Collaborative Practice Transfer Fund, HE STEM Programme.

  15. Conclusions • However…… • ENGAGEMENT with the support could be improved. • Several factors that could have contributed to this. • Further activity needed to help motivate such students? Acknowledgement: Development work was supported by the Collaborative Practice Transfer Fund, HE STEM Programme.

More Related