1. Supplemental Instruction and Academic Support F. Kim Wilcox, Ph.D.

2. Why we need academic support? n n Graduation rates of students n n Facilitate learning

3. Projected Graduation Rates 35.7% First Institution 1,000,000 21.4% 21.4% Subsequent Institution 600,000 Vincent Tinto, Leaving College, 1987 42.9%Dropout1,200,000

4. Supplemental Instruction Meat and Potatoes n Student facilitated review sessions n Assigned to historically difficult academic courses n Offered to all enrolled students n Regularly scheduled, out-of- class, voluntary, and anonymous

5. Key persons involved with the SI program n SI Leader n Faculty Member n SI Supervisor n Students

6. The History of Academic Support The Dark Ages Who are the high risk students?Who are the high risk students? Who is most likely to drop out?Who is most likely to drop out? How do you identify them?How do you identify them? Where are they located on campus?Where are they located on campus? How do you diagnose their needs?How do you diagnose their needs?

7. Identifying the High Risk Student n Standardized test scores n Self-referral by the student n In-house screening or diagnostic testing n High school course performance

8. Traditional Programs for High- Risk Students n Individual tutoring/SI n Study skill courses n Remedial subject courses n Workshops n Counseling sessions

9. Challenges with Traditional Approaches n Inaccurate/incomp- lete identification of high risk students n Expensive to provide developmental education courses, testing, etc.. n Presumes time to identify/remediate n Promotes remedial image n Difficult to evaluate effectiveness

10. Root Problems to Overcome n n Students' pragmatic approach to learning leads to passiveness. n n In the presence of a recognized authority we become silent. n n We must avoid already failed processes.

11. Repeating Failed Processes n n Tell them. n n Tell them again. n n Tell them again more slowly. Give them something shiny with which to play.

12. Breaking the Dependency Cycle Tell them. Tell them. Get them to tell each other. Get them to tell each other. Get them to tell you. Get them to tell you.

13. The Learning Curve Gordon Allport, 1948 n n Learning is a function of time on task. n n Learning is a function of resources. n n Learning is a function of positive experiences.

17. Students Construct Knowledge Through a Process of... n Social Interaction n Exploration n Application

18. Academic support should and should not... n n Academic support should not involve compromising or watering down course content. n n Academic support should help students become independent learners.

19. Academic support persons must not... n n Spoonfeed n n Reteach n n Give all the answers n n Dominate the session

20. Chinese Proverb Tell me, and I forget Show me, and I remember Involve me, and I understand

21. SI Research n SI participants earn higher mean final course grades. n SI participants receive lower rates of D, F, and W grades. n SI participants persist (reenroll and graduate) at higher rates.

22. Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by Institution Type National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

23. Percent of A& B Final Course Grades Data separated by institutional type All Colleges 2 Yr. Public 2 Yr. Private 4 Yr. Public 4 Year Private n=4,945 n=931 n=20 n= 3,001 n=993 35.9% 32.4% 38.9% 35.4% 43.2% 35.9% 32.4% 38.9% 35.4% 43.2% 46.8% 50.2% 53.1% 44.8% 52.1% 46.8% 50.2% 53.1% 44.8% 52.1% Non-SISI SI National Field Data: N=270 Institutions, 4,945 SI Courses, 505,738 Students. Level of significance of difference: 0.01 using chi-square test.

24. Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI and Non- SI Participants Separated by Institution Type National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

25. Mean Final Grades of SI and Non-SI Participants Separated by Discipline National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

26. Percentage of DFW Final Course Grades for SI and Non- SI Participants Separated by Discipline National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

27. Academic Disciplines Using Supplemental Instruction National Data, Fall 2003 – Fall 2006, 37 Institutions, 1003 Courses, n = 119,009 Students

28. Percent of SI Participation Differing Levels of Prior Achievement Percent of SI Participation Differing Levels of Prior Achievement

29. Mean Final Course Grades Differing Levels of Prior Achievement

30. Percent Enrollment Following Term Differing Levels of Prior Achievement

31. Persistence Rates of UMKC Students Percent Reenrolled/Graduated One Year Later

32. Graduation Rates of UMKC Students Cumulative Graduation Rate at 4 Time Periods

33. Percent of SI Participation UMKC

34. Motivation and Academic Achievement Winter 1996 (N = 1,593 Students)