A Non-Traditional SI Model for General Chemistry at Monmouth University

Neva PontorieroCoordinator, Supplemental Instruction

Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ

A Non-Traditional SI Model for General Chemistry

at Monmouth University

Monmouth University Private, comprehensive

coeducational institution of higher education, located on a 156-acre campus less than one mile from the New Jersey shore and one hour from New York City

Offers 53 undergraduate and graduate degree programs to approximately 6,000 students through eight school and six Centers of distinction

Tier-one institution, featured in The Princeton Review’s “Best 373 Colleges” 2011 edition

Ranked #40 by U.S. News & World Report for 2011 as one of America’s best institutions for study in the northeast region of the United States

Wilson Hall, National Historic Landmark

Center for Student Success (CSS)

Launched in 2009, previously known as the Life and Career Advising Center

Houses the Tutoring Center, the Writing Center, Supplemental Instruction, Career Services, Cooperative Education, Disability Services, Service Learning and Community Programs, First Year Advising, the Educational Opportunity Fund, and Transfer and Undeclared Services

Provides a full spectrum of support so that all students can successfully make the vital connections between educational, career, and life choices.

http://www.monmouth.edu/si

SI @ Monmouth University An SI Coordinator was hired at the request of the University Retention

Committee in Spring 2010 to launch the program and completed the SI Supervisor training at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC).

University data was collected from the past five years to determine which courses would benefit the most from SI (i.e. those courses with the highest rates of Ds, Ws, and Fs).

SI officially began as a small pilot in Fall 2010 and was only offered in seven class sections: three sections of General Chemistry 1, two sections of Introduction to Physics, and two sections of Western Civilization.

The pilot semester followed the “traditional model” of SI developed by UMKC: one SI leader was assigned to each class section (i.e. the SI leader sat in on all lectures for his/her assigned section, worked closely with the assigned professor, and held SI sessions and office hours only for students enrolled in that section).

The SI program has grown significantly since its pilot semester and is currently offered in seventeen class sections this Fall: seven sections of General Chemistry 1, three sections of Introduction to Physics, two sections of Cost Accounting, two sections of Managerial Accounting, two sections of Macroeconomics, and one section of Western Civilization.

“Traditional” Chemistry SI Fall 2010

CE 111-01 Professor: Dr. Szwajkajzer, SI

Leader: Lauren Section Enrollment: 24 SI Participants: 10 CE 111-03 Professor: Dr. Szwajkajzer, SI

Leader: Mark Section Enrollment: 24 SI Participants: 14 CE 111-07 Professor: Dr. Schreiber, SI

Leader: Jenani Section Enrollment: 19 SI Participants: 12

Possible SI Participants: 67

“Non-Traditional” Chemistry SI

Fall 2010 After midterm exams, the Chair of the Department of Chemistry, Medical Technology, and Physics requested that all General Chemistry (CE 111) students be allowed to participate in SI due to the high volume of students seeking additional course assistance from professors and through the Tutoring Center.

Due to limited program funding, and limited time remaining in the semester, we were unable to hire additional SI leaders to fulfill this request. Therefore, current SI leaders’ sessions were opened to all CE 111 students for the remainder of the semester.

The number of possible SI Participants rose from 67 to 127; the number of SI leaders remained the same.

Chemistry SI Leaders were paid additional planning/office hours for the remainder of the semester.

We were concerned that these new students would not attend sessions, as they were missing the critical element of having the SI leader in class with them each week.

Since new participants did not receive the full benefit of SI from the beginning of the term, we did not track their progress during the last few weeks of the semester.

Chemistry SI Fall 2010 Data

CE 111-01 Mean Midterm Course GPA of SI

Participants: 2.54 Mean Final Course GPA of SI

Participants: 2.29 Overall Change in Course GPA of SI

Participants: -9.8%




Participants: +31%




Participants: +5%

Pass70%

Fail30%

SI Participants' Pass/Fail Ratio

CE 111-01

Pass93%

Fail7%


CE 111-03

Pass83%

Fail17%


CE 111-07

SI Participant Feedback During the last week of the Fall 2010 semester, SI Leaders handed

out an end-of-term assessment survey to all students enrolled in sections in which SI was offered, including those students who attended the “non-traditional” SI model for Chemistry.

146 students took part in the survey: 73 SI participants and 73 non-SI participants

Of the 73 SI participants surveyed, 64% ranked the helpfulness of SI sessions as “very helpful” (5); 25% ranked the helpfulness of SI sessions as “somewhat helpful” (4); and 11% ranked the helpfulness of SI sessions as “indifferent” (3), indicating that the majority of students found the sessions to be beneficial to their success in the course.

Based on these results, we decided to continue offering the “non-traditional” SI model for General Chemistry 2 (CE 112) in Spring 2011, with the same three Chemistry SI leaders, Mark, Lauren, and Jenani, from the start of the term.

For Spring 2011, each SI leader would sit in two different sections’ lectures per week, thereby covering the six sections of CE 112 offered that term.

“Non-Traditional” Chemistry SI

Spring 2011 CE 112-02 Professor: Dr. Ingebrethsen Section Enrollment: 24 SI Participants: 8

CE 112-03 Professor: Dr. Ingebrethsen Section Enrollment: 24 SI Participants: 8

CE 112-04 Professor: Dr. Kucharczyk Section Enrollment: 14 SI Participants: 1

Possible SI Participants: 120

CE 112-05 Professor: Dr. Ingebrethsen Section Enrollment: 19 SI Participants: 6

CE 112-06 Professor: Dr. Kucharczyk Section Enrollment: 22 SI Participants: 4

CE 112-H1 Professor: Dr. Szwajkajzer Section Enrollment: 17 SI Participants: 6

Chemistry SI Spring 2011 Data



Participants: 2.0 Overall Change in Course GPA: -

6.98%


CE 111-03 CE 112-05 Mean Midterm Course GPA of SI


Participants: 2.98 Overall Change in Course GPA: -

9.7%



Participants: 2.85 Overall Change in Course GPA:

+29.5%

CE 112-H1 Mean Midterm Course GPA of SI



+1.5%




+12%




+94%

Chemistry SI Spring 2011 Data


CE 111-03

Pass89%

Fail11%


ALL SECTIONS

Pass75%

Fail25%


CE 112-02

Pass83%

Fail17%


CE 112-03

Pass100%


CE 112-04

Pass100%


CE 112-05

Pass100%


CE 112-06

Pass100%


CE 112-H1

SI Leader Testimonials

“SI for the General Chemistry sections has been very beneficial to all of the students taking the class. Those who attended SI were able to help their peers by sharing study tips, working out word problems, and giving alternative ideas on how to approach a problem. The students also had a better understanding of the material and were more comfortable approaching and answering difficult problems. The only downside was the fact that there are only 3 SI Leaders for chemistry, but all of the sections are welcome to attend any session. This sometimes becomes a problem during the middle of the semester when students will attend a session held by an SI leader other than the one who sits in on their lectures. This often leads to a little bit of stress because some students are at different levels and cover slightly different material. However, this non-traditional model provides an opportunity for more students to get assistance, since some students have hectic schedules and prefer more options for help.”

Lauren Bonfiglio, SI LeaderCE 111 & CE 112

SI Leader Testimonials “Being an SI Leader in the Fall 2010 semester

using the traditional SI structure was a rewarding experience. I worked closely with the professor to provide students with a seamless transition between lecture and my SI sessions. Throughout the semester, I would have students regularly attend my sessions, and I created a close rapport with those students. I saw growth in many of the students. They became more confident and willing to approach difficult problems and concepts. Planning for my sessions was a simple endeavor since I was paired with only one section.”

“The spring semester, though, presented various difficulties because of the structure of the program. Since I was paired with multiple professors, planning each session was very difficult since each professor covered material at different paces. Different professors also emphasized different material throughout their classes and on their tests which made planning review sessions just as difficult. The SI model used in the Spring semester was not perfect by any measure, but it did offer students more flexibility when trying to attend sessions.”

Mark Stranieri, SI LeaderCE 111 & CE 112

Chemistry SI Fall 2011

“Traditional” SI

More accurate planning of SI sessions based on class lecture; all students at each SI session will be learning the same material at the same time

More frequent interaction and stronger working relationship between section professor and assigned SI Leader

Additional ease of tracking student attendance, performing outcomes assessment for the program, and evaluating SI Leaders

Smaller session sizes allow for more organized SI sessions and greater opportunity to utilize collaborative learning activities more effectively

Opportunity for all students to attend any SI session or office hour (i.e. SI Leaders are available 9 hours per week vs. 3 hours per week), thereby increasing the potential for higher attendance and assisting more students

Opportunity for students from different class sections to interact, work on course material, and form study groups outside of class

More cost-effective use of student wage budget; additional planning hours for current SI Leaders versus hiring additional Leaders

More effective use of classroom space

“Non-Traditional” SI

Discussion How have you amended the “traditional” SI model to fit the needs of

your own campus?

What other ways have you tweaked your SI program to meet the constraints of your departmental budget?

What additional pros and cons are there to opening all SI sessions up to students enrolled in all sections of a given course, using multiple SI Leaders?

In what ways would you need to prepare or train SI Leaders who work in this “non-traditional” model differently than those who work in a “traditional” SI setting? Note: all other SI courses at Monmouth (Accounting, Economics, Physics, and Western Civilization) still follow the “traditional” model.