Troy Place, Amanda Glick, Edmund Tsang, Betsy Aller, Laura Darrah,

1
Work in Progress A Pilot Project to Assess the
Added Value of Engineering and Student Affairs
Collaboration on Student Cognitive and Affective
Development
Troy Place, Amanda Glick, Edmund Tsang, Betsy
Aller, Laura Darrah, College of Engineering
Applied Sciences, Western Michigan
University 2012 Frontiers In Education
Conference, Seattle, WA
2
Overview

• Background of Engineering and Student Affairs
  Collaboration at WMU
• Motivation for the Pilot Project
• Design of the Pilot Project
• Findings
• Future Work

3
Background of College of Engineering and Applied
Sciences

• 16 undergraduate (10 engineering, 3 engineering
  technology, 3 applied sciences) 9 masters and
  6 doctoral programs
• Accelerated masters programs in engineering
• Undergraduate programs accredited by CAC, EAC,
  and ETAC
• of ABET, Inc.
• 2012 Fall enrollment 2,222 undergraduate and 403
  graduate students
• Degrees awarded (2010-11) 302 Bachelors, 98
  Masters, and 10 Doctorate
• Average ACT-MATH for incoming first-year students
  25.2
• CEAS does not have a common first-year curriculum

4
Background of CEAS Retention Efforts

• Began in 2005 with a NSF-STEP award focusing on
  first-time first-year students
• 85 of all students attending summer orientation
  are placed in cohorts where they enrolled in the
  same 3-5 courses in fall and 2-4 courses in
  spring semesters
• Each cohort is assigned a faculty mentor, often
  an instructor-of-record of 1st- or 2nd-semester
  course
• Academic performance and retention are tracked
  using students Western Identification Number
  (WIN)

5
Background of CEAS and Student Affairs
Collaboration

• Although not a requirement, many 1st-year WMU
  students choose to live in residence halls on
  campus
• Engineering House (EH) started in 2006 as a
  residential learning community (CEAS and Res
  Life)
• Increasing collaboration between CEAS-Res Life
  and other units of Student Affairs since 2008
• Collaborative efforts strengthened through joint
  planning and submitting a proposal to National
  Science Foundation in 2009

6
Motivation for the Pilot Project

• Improving the quality of the undergraduate
  experience at any institution is so complex and
  multifaceted that it demands cooperation by the
  two groups on campus that spend the most time
  with students faculty members and student
  affairs professionals A faculty cannot by
  itself accomplish the colleges objectives for
  students intellectual and personal development
  it needs the cooperation of others who work with
  students where students spend the majority of
  their time in employment settings, playing
  fields, living quarters, and so on.
• -- Banta and Kuh, Change, March/April 1998

7
Design of Pilot Project

• Residence-hall Assistants (RAs) in EH are CEAS
  students RAs in Non-EH are not CEAS students
• RA programming in EH has an engineering theme or
  focus no such requirement in Non-EH RA
  programming
• of 1st-Year CEAS students in EH increased from
  88 in Fall 2006 to 173 in Fall 2010 and 162 in
  Fall 2011
• of 1st-Year CEAS students in Non-EH were 250 in
  Fall 2010 and 217 in Fall 2011
• No statistically-significant difference in
  academic preparation between EH and Non-EH
  students -- average ACT math score of EH students
  is 25.4, while the non-EH students average is
  25.2

8
Design of Pilot Project

• Measure of Cognitive Development
• Performances in 1st-year STEM courses are
  determined and compared
• Math (Calculus II, Calculus I, Pre-Calculus,
  Algebra II) General Chemistry I University
  Physics I Technical Communication Engineering
  Graphics
• successfully completed course (Grade C or
  better)
• Fall to Spring and 1st- to 2nd-Year retention
  rates
• Chi-squared test with significance level a lt/
  0.05

9
Design of Pilot Project

• Measure of Affective Development
• STEP Survey
• Conducted at end of students first-semester at
  WMU (December)
• Gather student opinion on ease of transition
  academic habits, participation and value of STEP
  components
• Disaggregate EH vs Non-EH replies

10
Design of Pilot Project

• Measure of Affective Development
• written responses to co-curricular activities, as
  collected in IME 1020 Technical Communication.
• 246 summaries were collected from 1020
  instructors and separated into 4 co-curricular
  categories cultural or hands-on, social
  gatherings and student society meetings, academic
  lectures, and Capstone Senior Design
  presentations.
• Summaries were divided into two more categories,
  Engineering House (EH) and Non-Engineering House
  students and coded so that the two
  researchers/raters who scored them by Blooms
  rubric were blind to the living arrangement
  categories. It was hypothesized that the
  co-curricular activities would have a higher
  affective impact on the EH students, as measured
  by the following standards.

11
Design of Pilot Project A Measure of Affective
and Cognitive Development
12
Design of Pilot Project

• Summaries were given the score (or level) that
  best matches their style and content. Fractions
  were used and figured into the average.

• Level 1 Uninterested/Disinterested unaware of
  value or relevance of activity rote response
  (what/when/where/who)
• Level 2 Express interest acknowledge some value
  or relevance of activity able to report in own
  words or critique
• Level 3 See connection to career
  development/lifelong learning recognize lack of
  prior knowledge/awareness express willingness to
  apply information or experience
• Level 4 Become a champion for others
  demonstrate interest to seek additional
  information express willingness to seek
  additional opportunity

13
Findings

• Cognitive Development
• No statistically-significant difference in
  individual course performance between 1st-year EH
  students and 1st-year Non-EH
• Average Term GPA comparison
• Statistically significant, alt/ 0.05
• No statistically significant difference in
  Fall-to-Spring retention and 1st- to-2nd-year
  retention to CEAS

1st-Year Students Fall 2010 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2011
1st-Year Students of Students Avg. GPA of Students Avg. GPA
EH 173 2.62 162 2.55
Non-EH 250 2.38 217 2.49
14
Findings

• STEP Fall Survey EH students responded with
  statistically-significant higher scores in the
  following items
• Fall 2010 higher confidence in managing life
  and school have studied with STEP students are
  able to find tutors have used SSC have
  participated in RSOs have used a tutor value
  enrollment in a cohort have participated in
  co-curricular activities value living in
  residence hall (EH)
• Fall 2011 know at least 6 STEP students have
  participated in mentoring activities have used
  SSC value living in residence hall (EH)

15
Findings

• Affective Development Co-curricular responses by
  living arrangement
• Using a mean average based on Blooms cognitive
  and affective levels (1-4), raters found the
  following averages by event types and Engineering
  House versus the Non-Engineering House students
• 1.Cultural and Hands-on EH 2.03 Non EH
  2.41
• 2. Social Gatherings/Student
• Society Meetings EH 2.69
  Non EH 2.41
• 3. Academic Lectures EH 2.33 Non
  EH 2.26
• 4. Senior Design Pres. EH 2.11
  Non EH 2.12

16
Findings

• No statistically significant difference between
  EH and non-EH students appears. One point of
  interest is that the co-curricular category that
  earned the most 3s was the Student Society
  Meetings.

• Level 1 Uninterested/Disinterested unaware of
  value or relevance of
• activity rote response (what/when/where/who)
• Level 2 Express interest acknowledge some value
  or relevance of activity able to report in own
  words or critique
• Level 3 See connection to career
  development/lifelong learning recognize lack of
  prior knowledge/awareness express willingness to
  apply information or experience
• Level 4 Demonstrate interest to seek additional
  information express willingness to seek
  additional opportunity become a champion for
  others

17
Future Work

• The college of engineering and the office of
  residence life will continue to work together to
  sustain the Engineering House.
• Statistical analysis of all engineering students
  will continue in terms of cognitive development
  indicators GPA in core courses, retention from
  first to second semester, retention from first to
  second year.
• The comparison of EH and Non EH students in these
  cognitive categories will continue, as will the
  analysis of the how much co-curricular events
  impact each group in the affective domain.

18
2012-13 New Collaborative Initiatives

• Proactive intervention of at-risk students
• Focused on first-year, returning sophomores, and
  first-year transfer students living on campus
• Grades in critical STEM courses (C, DC, and E)
• Evaluate what are the best GPA ranges to target
  where the intervention will have the maximum
  impact
• Mandatory Math Tutoring
• Four (4) sections of Algebra II and one (1)
  section of Pre-Calculus in which majority are
  CEAS first-year students
• Math instructors set trigger for mandatory
  tutoring, with incentive and penalty
• Employment Supplemental Instruction (SI) model of
  tutoring

19
Acknowledgment

• Partial support was provided by the National
  Science Foundation STEM Talent Expansion Program
  (STEP) under grant 0969287.