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

Work in Progress: A Pilot Project to Assess the Added Value of Engineering and Student Affairs Collaboration on

Student Cognitive and Affective Development

Overview

• Background of Engineering and Student Affairs Collaboration at WMU

• Motivation for the Pilot Project

• Design of the Pilot Project

• Findings

• Future Work

Background of College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

• 16 undergraduate (10 engineering, 3 engineering technology, 3 applied sciences); 9 master’s; and 6 doctoral programs

• Accelerated master’s 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 Bachelor’s, 98 Master’s, and

10 Doctorate• Average ACT-MATH for incoming first-year students = 25.2• CEAS does not have a common first-year curriculum

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)

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

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 college’s 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

• Residence-hall Assistants (RA’s) in EH are CEAS students; RA’s 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

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 </= 0.05

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

Design of Pilot Project

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 Bloom’s 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.

Design of Pilot Project: A Measure of Affective and Cognitive Development

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

FindingsCognitive 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, </= 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 2011

# of Students Avg. GPA # of Students Avg. GPA

EH 173 2.62* 162 2.55

Non-EH 250 2.38 217 2.49

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 RSO’s; 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)

Findings• Affective Development: Co-curricular responses by living arrangement

• Using a mean average based on Bloom’s 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

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

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.

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

Acknowledgment

Partial support was provided by the National Science Foundation STEM Talent Expansion

Program (STEP) under grant #0969287.