1 / 20

Engineering Enrichment Center Peer Tutoring Program (EECPT) An Outcomes Evaluation

Engineering Enrichment Center Peer Tutoring Program (EECPT) An Outcomes Evaluation. Tacy Costanzo CSA 592 – April 2006.

taline
Télécharger la présentation

Engineering Enrichment Center Peer Tutoring Program (EECPT) An Outcomes Evaluation

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. Engineering Enrichment Center Peer Tutoring Program(EECPT)An Outcomes Evaluation Tacy Costanzo CSA 592 – April 2006

  2. To assist under-prepared students (EOP) adjust to, and succeed in, engineering majors by providing peer tutoring in the science and math courses that are foundational to engineering majors. The EECPT Mission

  3. Program Goals • Retain students in their engineering major • Increase GPA in core curriculum courses

  4. Literature Review • Higgins touts peer tutoring as a mechanism to slow the departure of at-risk students from higher education (2000) • Tutoring is successful in improving math comprehension (Hendersen et al., 2002) • Peer tutoring helps to build a positive attitude toward learning (Bergen & Mi, 2002) • Students experienced reduced anxiety and improved self-confidence after tutoring (House & Wohlt, 1990) • Tutoring is a forum for excellence, not just a survival tool (Burdman, 2001)

  5. Peer tutoring aids in the academic and social integration critical to retention (Cambiano et al., 2004; Codjoe & Helms, 2005; Longerbeam et al., 2004; Saunders 1992) The interactive and individualized nature of tutoring aids in retention (Burdman, 2001; Butler, 1999; Craig et al., 2004; Hodges & White 2001) All students benefit from small group, student centered instruction (Bigood, 2004; Burdman, 2001; Hodges & White, 2001) Literature Review

  6. Method • The sample was randomly selected: • 36 students from tutoring program • 36 students not in tutoring program • Chi square was used to compare expected and observed rates of retention by: • EOP status • Participation in EECPT

  7. Both one-sample and paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate group mean GPA changes after the program for 4 different cohorts: yes tutoring and yes EOP yes tutoring and not EOP no tutoring and yes EOP no tutoring and not EOP Method continued:

  8. Results – Chi square • Just over half of the program participants (20 of 38) were retained in their engineering major at the end of the study • 95% of the program participants (36 of 38) were retained at the university a rate higher than the overall campus norm

  9. Chi square continued: • 50% of the EOP students in the tutoring program were retained in their major • 25% of the EOP students not in the tutoring program were retained in their major

  10. Results: t-tests for group mean • Each cohort had positive grade point gains at the end of the study period: • yes tutoring and yes EOP +.185 • yes tutoring and not EOP + .059 • no tutoring and yes EOP + .011 • no tutoring and not EOP + .074

  11. Results: t-tests • The group mean GPA for EOP students in the tutoring program increased by .185 grade points during the study period • significant at the .001 level • The group mean GPA for EOP students not in the tutoring program only increased by .011 during the same time period

  12. Findings • Chi square • almost 90% of students (34 of 38) not in EOP were retained in their majors • this was significant at the .001 level • students not identified as EOP appeared to be adequately prepared for the rigors of an engineering major

  13. Findings continued: • EOP students participating in the tutoring program were retained at twice the percentage as EOP students not participating in tutoring • Mechanisms need to be developed to increase EOP student participation in the tutoring program

  14. Findings continued: • Students participating in tutoring were retained at the university at a higher rate than the campus average • Tutoring appears to assists in retention

  15. Future Research The evaluation would have been enhanced by: • Isolating tutoring as a variable • Sample that better represented the college population: • In the sample women = 40%, college = 16% • In the sample EOP = 42%, campus = 27 • Cultural/racial data would have expanded the scope of the study • A qualitative assessment of the program to test client satisfaction

  16. “…tutoring has consistently been found to have a positive impact on retention, final grades in tutored courses, course completion and graduation rates.” Rheinheimer & Mann (2000) In conclusion

  17. References • Bergen, Jr., T.J., & Mi, H. (2002). Peer tutoring and the self-instruction module. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(4), 28 – 35. • Bidgood, P. (2004). Student mentoring and peer tutoring. MSOR Connections, 4(1) 12-16. Retrieved online on 2/2/2006, from www.mathstore.ac.uk/newsletter/index.shtml. • Burdman, P. (2001). Fulfilling their potential. Black Issues in Education, 18(2), 36-38. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Butler, W.L. (1999). Intrusive advisement, counseling, and tutoring: an interactive model for retaining academically under-prepared students. The Negro Educational Review, 50(3-4), 109-122. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Cambiano, R.L., Denny, G.S., & DeVore, J.B. (2004). College Student Retention at a Midwestern university: a six-year study. Journal of College Admission, 166(Winter) 22-29. • Codjoe, H.M., & Helms, M.M. (2005). A retention assessment process. Planning for higher education, 33(3), 31-42. Retrieved October 18, 200, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Craig, S.C., Driscoll, D.M., & Gholson, B. (2004) Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163-183. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database.

  18. Dale, P.M. (1996). A successful college retention program. College Student Journal, 30 354-360. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Dunn, R. (1990). Grouping students for instruction: effects of learning style on achievement and attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4) 485-495. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Dunn, R., & Stevenson, J.M. (1997). Teaching diverse college students to study with a learning-styles prescription. College Student Journal, 31(September), 333-339. • Fields, C. D. (2002). Taking a holistic approach to retention. Black issues in higher education, 19(18), 28-30. Retrieved August, 2005, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Foreman, J., Wilkie, C. & Keilen, K. (1990). Fostering the success of students who are experiencing academic probation. The Journal of College Student Development, 31(4) 371- 379. • Henderson, N., Fadali, M.S., & Johnson, J. (2002). An investigation of first-year engineering students’ attitude toward peer-tutoring. Scholarly paper presented in Session F3B at the American Society of Engineering Education, Frontiers in Education Conference, November. • Hernandez, John C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 575-588. Retrieved on February 11, 2006, from document sharing site on eCompanion.

  19. Higgins, B. (2004). Relationship between retention and peer tutoring for at-risk students. Journal of nursing education, 43(7), 19-21. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Hodges, R. & White, Jr., W.G. (2001). Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3) 2-10. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • House, J.D., & Wohlt, V. (1990). The effect of tutoring program participation on the performance of academically under prepared college freshmen. The Journal of College Student Development, 31(4) 365-370. • Landis, R.B. (2005). Retention by design: achieving excellence in minority engineering education [Monograph]. An update on the 1991 publication, presented at the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering Conference, October. • Longerbeam, S.D., Sedlacek, W.E., & Alatorre, H.M. (2004). In their own voices: Latino student retention. NASPA Journal Online, 41(3), 538-550. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Maggio, J.C., White, Jr., W.G., Molstad, S., & Kher, N. (2005) Pre-freshman summer programs’ impact on student achievement and retention. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(2), 32-33. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Miller, M.T. (2004). Encouraging college student success: the instructional challenges, response strategies, and study skills of contemporary undergraduates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 60-67. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database..

  20. O’Connell, A.A., & Schrader, P.G. (2003). Introduction to probability: a hyper-card tutoring system. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 275-284. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Reason, Robert D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40 (4), 172-191. • Rheinheimer, D.C. & Mann, A. (2000). Gender matching, floor effects, and other tutoring outcomes. The Journal of Developmental Education, 24(2) 10-18. Retrieved online on 2/12/06. Retrieved February 22, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Saunders, D. (1992) Peer tutoring in higher education. Studies in higher education, 17(2), 211-218. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from University of California’s Melvyl database. • Terrell, M.C., Hassell, R.K., & Duggar, M. (1992). Mentoring programs: a blueprint for personal growth and academic development. NASPA Journal, 29(3), 199-206. • Tincani, M. (2004). Improving outcomes for college students with disabilities. College Teaching, 52(4), 128-132. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database. • Wankat, P., &Oreovicz, F. (2005). American Society of Engineering Education: Prism. Making them want to stay. March, 21-25. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from www.ASEE.org database. • Wright, R.R. (2003). Real men don’t ask for directions: male student attitudes toward peer tutoring. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(1), 61-75. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from OCLC NewFirstSearch database.

More Related