The ROSES Program at Michigan State University: History and Assessment

1. The ROSES Program at Michigan State University:History and Assessment ASEE Annual Meeting Albuquerque, NM June 2001 Regina T. Zmich Program Director Thomas F. Wolff, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies http://www.egr.msu.edu/~wolff

2. Prologue • The first semester is hard on freshmen and there needs to be a way to prepare us for how difficult it really is. Not all incoming freshmen are clueless, party-going slackers, some struggle very much to achieve a 4.0 and good academic standing without always making it. It is important to know that you can’t blow off any of the work or not go to class and still do well… • … 1998-99 ROSES student, assessment survey…

3. ROSES • Residential Option for Science and Engineering Students • A residential living-learning program • About 150-200 students per year, mostly engineering, also science and agriculture • Started in Fall 1993

4. Program Components • Common residence hall (Bailey Hall) • One-credit seminar, fall semester • Reserved sections of common freshman courses • Tutoring • Peer Leaders

5. Why? Some facts about MSU • Liberal approach to freshman major selection, restricted approach to junior admission • Nearly 1000 of 6600 freshmen declare engineering • Capacities for juniors in the eleven majors equals 795 • Large variance in freshman skills, interests and knowledge

6. Engineering Freshmen Math Classes

7. MSU Freshmen • Hence… • MSU is big • MSU freshmen are academically diverse • 30%+ change their majors in and out of engineering • Required cohort programs such as “Freshmen Engineering,” “Common Freshman Year,” etc., are problematical • The solution...

8. ROSES program • The ROSES program is • voluntary, for those who express interest in a program with an engineering and science identity • selective, for those who are likely to succeed • multi-faceted -- academic, social, residential • The program provides an atmosphere of a small, focused program in the midst of a large and diverse university setting

9. History • 1992 Developed the model • Experience from MSU’s Lyman Briggs School • 1993 Started program with 142 students • ROSES seminar with single large lecture on engineering and study skills • Evening recitation • Honors students tutors

10. History • 1994 • Engineering named lead College • Seminar in three large classes, by College • Upperclassmen hired as tutors • 1995 • Dropped large lectures in favor of small section model, 12 to 43 students • Increased ties to intended majors • For some students, this was their first small class

11. Current Structure • 24 ACT score and 3.30 high school GPA automatically admitted • 200 students in Bailey Hall; 150 are engineers • Success seminar series in residence hall • Enrollment in common sections of Calculus, Chemistry, Computing, Bioscience, Writing, Arts and Humanities, Social Science • ROSES seminars • Tutoring • Sophomore Peer Leaders

12. Seminar Class Goals • Provide orientation to students’ college, the University, and collegiate life • Introduce strategies and skills for academic success • Explore possible paths of career development Classes are taught by professional advisors, grouped by intended major

13. Success seminar attendance Writing assignments Oral communication activities Career exploration activies Exposure to University resources: library, JOBTRAK, job fair Making connections with faculty and staff Assigned readings and expectation of critical analysis New! Disassembly project Seminar Course Requirements

14. Peer Leaders • Former ROSES students • Help students become acquainted and socialize • Plan extracurricular activities • Serve as TAs for seminar course • Paid 5 to 10 hours per week and get single rooms in Bailey Hall

15. Assessment -- Program Satisfaction Detailed questions are in paper

16. Assessment -- Program Satisfaction Detailed questions are in paper

17. Assessment - Student Performance • Detailed tables are in paper • Compared ROSES and non-ROSES students with similar course loads in Fall 96, 98, 00 • Similar ACT scores, predicted GPAs • Grades in Chemistry, Calculus I, Social Science • Credits, GPA, Retention

18. Assessment - Student Performance • 1996 • No significant differences ( = 0.04) • 1998 • No significant differences except… • Calculus I grade 0.48 lower ! • 2000 • Chemistry +0.41 • Calculus +0.50 • Cum credits +1.35 in first semester • Cum GPA +0.37

19. Discussion • Program satisfaction rose fairly uniformly over eight years • Student performance rose quickly in last few years… Why? • Staff had converged on realistic expectations • Role of peer leaders better defined • Improved peer leader recruiting and training • More attention to scheduling into the common courses

20. Discussion • Interested Groups • Women students • Parents • Essay for admission • Emphasis on students’ reasons for joining program, not parents’ reasons

21. Conclusions -- Lessons learned • Small seminar classes of 25+/-, not large sections • Important role of peer leaders • Ensuring enrollment in the common sections • Need for considerable structure and management • Need for proactive guidance -- simply putting them in one place doesn’t accomplish it

22. Thank You !