Embedded Tutoring: A Bridge to Sustained Success and Student Retention Lauren Humphries Bernadette Karpa Bucks County Community College Academic Success Center

Our Tutoring Center Goal Centers Staff CRLA Certification To offer a friendly, welcoming place for students to receive academic assistance so they can build the skills and confidence needed to be successful. Centers Newtown, Lower Bucks, Upper Bucks, and Online Staff 4 full-time and approximately 80 part-time staff members. Student Tutors Professional Tutors Faculty Tutors Success Advocates CRLA Certification International Tutor Training Program Certification Levels 1, 2, & 3 B Orientation Spiel

Our Offerings 15 Real-Time Online Subjects Appointments Drop-In (5 subjects) 30 Face-to-Face Subjects for 1-on-1 and Group Sessions Embedded Tutoring, Workshops, & Orientations Asynchronous Online Forms Online Writing Ask a Tutor Peer Mentoring Face-to-Face Drop-In Virtual B Orientation Spiel

Center Activity Reports Fall 2017 Through 10/31/17 Spring 2016 Visits – 5,401 Students – 1,034 Hours – 5,413.79 Fall 2016 Visits – 6,188 Students – 1,552 Hours – 5,542.92 Spring 2017 Visits – 5,901 Students – 1,318 Hours – 5,576.87 Visits – 3,520 Students – 847 (unduplicated) Hours – 3,125.05 Fall-to-Fall Comparison (as of 10/31) B Orientation Spiel Visits – 3,965 Students – 956 (unduplicated) Hours – 3,467.19

How and Why it All Began… Embedded tutoring had been a goal for almost 5 years– too busy to attain. Declining enrollment led to a decline in visit numbers. Time-starved students Continued stigma associated with tutoring Needed to re-evaluate the best way to reach the students Talked to them informally Talked to instructors about the student feedback and challenges L - Seen at previous PA/NJ CRLA Conference – reading program Stretched too thin to consider, but kept in the back of mind Many student responsibilities that did not previously exist ongoing stigma Talking informally to one faculty while heating up lunch

Our Pilot Process Identified key faculty with a strong understanding of tutoring. Identified most experienced tutors with availability to match. Started small – 3 instructors and 3 sections Word of mouth spread, and ultimately took on 11 sections with 6 faculty members during the pilot. Downside: Grew faster than planned, so IR involvement and assessment plan not as thorough as we would have liked. L - Faculty were either former directors of the Center or former deans and area coordinators of the Language and Literature Department with whom we worked closely. (Developmental Comp and Reading faculty, then AESL Coordinator Began with Coordinators, quickly expanded to include a few faculty tutors. Took on additional requests based on scheduling opening (an alternating biweekly schedule with two sections, for example.)

Greatest Challenges Schedule Changes: Maintaining the Tutor’s Role: Adjustment requests made often Schedule Balance: Ensuring sufficient coverage in the Center Maintaining the Tutor’s Role: Managing expectations and maintaining the Center’s overall mission Long Term Funding and Staffing: High demand and limited funds L

Offered Embedded Tutoring Models Weekly in Developmental Reading Sections Weekly on Lab Day in Comp108 Weekly or Biweekly in Developmental Composition and AESL Classes Peer Review or workshop days in college-level Composition Weekly in Math for Educators Course L – Difference between SI and TA Traditional SI Model cannot work where we are – Students are not there long enough or they are present TAs are no longer tutors, and we want to maintain our core role, even in the classroom partnership

Some Examples… Workshops: AESL Activities: “Pin the Comma on the Sentence” MLA Citation and Avoiding Plagiarism Peer Reviews: How to Respond Effectively to Peer Writing AESL Activities: How to Effectively Use Translators and When Not To Idioms Articles Lab Day Support for Reading Courses Conference/Draft Review Partnership with Faculty Peer Review Activity Example B –

B *Used with permission from Professor Sarahlyn Bruck, Sarahlyn.Bruck@bucks.edu Contact Sarah with questions about the faculty perspective on embedded tutoring.

Embedded Tutoring Numbers Spring 2016: Began with 3 sections, spread to 11 295 Visits for 130 Students Fall 2016: 25 Sections 1,369 Visits for 276 Students Spring 2017: 20 Sections 1,210 Visits for 179 Students B

Fall 2017 Activity Through 10/31/2017 13 Sections* 255 visits 104 students (unduplicated) Students are often enrolled in more than one developmental class at a time. Being just past midterm, we project visits will be close to SP16 results. B – Highlight reason for differences; Modular and Late-starting

What Have We Learned So Far? More Training for Tutors More Examples for Faculty Refine Assessment Efforts L

What Have We Learned So Far? More Training Tutors and More Examples for Faculty: Current Implementation Process: Initial conversation with Assistant Director Review of guidelines and role of the tutor Establish frequency of and goals for tutor visits Review protocol for adjustments during semester In-Progress Expansions: Separate handbook section for embedded tutors Increased tutor training on the importance of being fluid and managing the personal expectations of each section and instructor Guide materials for faculty, including sample activity suggestions New breakout session for embedded tutors at Center In-Services L

What Have We Learned So Far? Refine Assessment Efforts: Current Assessment All self-reported, more anecdotal Survey Monkey surveys for faculty and students administered at the end of the semester Review of student visits to the Center before/after embedded tutoring Following the progress of several non-traditional and AESL students Working with Institutional Research and Faculty: Revised, more thorough survey, administered pre/post visit Skill-based per visit Quick survey for beginning, middle, and end of semester Pilot planned with one instructor to explore grade impact Develop assessment for tutors to ensure training is effective preparation L – Middle States PRR report and structural changes for IR; staffing changes within our Center and last minute changes for faculty

Assessment Challenges How do we capture the impact of embedded tutoring when so many factors influence a student’s retention and grades? How do we account for growth in students who do not attain traditional definitions of success, especially for open enrollment institutions like community colleges? L – Mostly Discussion (Base on how much time is remaining)

Our Decision… Until we determine exactly how to capture the data: Self-reported survey data from faculty and students Student conversations Student visits and remarks L (Continued from discussion slide)

Some Survey Results Student respondents reported an increased understanding of the concepts and skills discussed in embedded tutoring sessions Spring 2016 = 100% Fall 2016 = 94.7% (remaining selected “Unsure”) Fall 2016 – 83.3% faculty respondents noted an increase in student grades (remaining selected “Unsure”). Increase from Spring 2016, when there was an even split in responses with 50% seeing an increase and 50% unsure. Both Spring 2016 and Fall 2016 – 100% faculty respondents reported those who interacted with the embedded tutors were more engaged and participated more actively than those who did not. Notice no Spring 2017 Data? Another challenge: survey completion!

Target Population Progress Student A Embedded tutor in lowest-level developmental writing course 19 visits for conversation groups prior to embedded contacts, but never one-on-one sessions 66 one-on-one tutoring visits since beginning with an embedded tutor B - D

Target Population Progress Student B Began in non-credit AESL then moved to credit FA16. After embedded in SP16 consistent utilization (47 visits since/none prior). Student C Enrolled in AESL and Developmental Reading in FA15 Three visits prior to embedded tutoring in SP16- 59 visits since that time B – G and G

Target Population Progress Student D No contact with tutor before meeting embedded tutor AESL and many family obligations (single mother of three young children, aging mother, work, etc.) Began in lowest-level developmental writing class 48 one-on-one visits after embedded tutoring Supported her through the successful completion of composition requirements B - P

Faculty Feedback “The benefits of small group instruction are maximized with the assistance of the tutor who students view as a 'leader' but also relate to differently than they would to the instructor.” “The individual attention that these students have never really gotten…translated into increased engagement with the courses and their own writing.” “I think the service is well-worth the effort. It has also increased student participation in tutoring services, as having a "face" to interact with resulted in students feeling more comfortable about availing themselves with the services.” “I noticed that students were less afraid to share work they didn't think was 'good' or was incomplete with the tutor than they were with me as the instructor.” L

Student Feedback “Meeting the tutors in class I think helps to "break the ice" a bit and I believe it makes it more comfortable for students to come and seek help when they know who they are looking for.” “It definitely helped me a lot more and now I am more open to going to the center because before I was very hesitant but now I feel more comfortable.” “Having [the tutor] in the room really helped me with my rough drafts. She really made me think about the topics we were assigned for essays, and definitely had an impact on my grades in a positive way.” “It was a really big help for me to have the tutor attend our class, writing is my weakness and now I feel more comfortable writing.” L

Long-term Goals Expand subjects Additional Academic Departments Planning for increased funding Grants Strategic Initiatives Further formalize the training New handbook content and in-service training Continue more formal assessment Partnerships with faculty Exploration with Institutional Research L

Contact Information Lauren Humphries Assistant Director, Academic Success Center Lauren.Humphries@bucks.edu Bernadette Karpa Writing Specialist, Academic Success Center 215-497-8733 Bernadette.Karpa@bucks.edu www.bucks.edu/asc