1. Mathematics Support Centres: The need for early and contextualised supports. Donal Healy Ciaran O’Sullivan Paul Robinson Irish Maths Support Network 5th Irish Workshop on Maths Learning and Support Centres 4 th Feb, 2011 NUIG.

2. Talk Structure: Insights on timing and nature of supports and interventions from report reviewing first year student progression on certificate engineering students over a 6 year period. In particular: Dialogue arising from such an examination of the effectiveness of student supports informing a major structural change in engineering course provision. Key finding: importance of early and contextualised supports Implications (in the wider context of retention debate) for Maths Support Centres: Directly connecting to the lecture/tutorial room experience Catalysts for enhancing student involvement with learning through the building of learning communities.

3. ELSU Project Report: Background Information. For ELSU to be successful it would need to : be aimed at first year full-time engineering students be aimed at first year full-time engineering students be highly structured be highly structured have extended intensive contact with students who are most likely to drop out, have extended intensive contact with students who are most likely to drop out, be interlocked with other programs and services, be interlocked with other programs and services, have a strategy of engagement using qualified staff have a strategy of engagement using qualified staff focus on the affective and cognitive needs of the student as suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. focus on the affective and cognitive needs of the student as suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. be a catalyst for changes in institutional culture and student attitudes regarding completion of programmes. be a catalyst for changes in institutional culture and student attitudes regarding completion of programmes. For ELSU to be successful it would need to : be aimed at first year full-time engineering students be aimed at first year full-time engineering students be highly structured be highly structured have extended intensive contact with students who are most likely to drop out, have extended intensive contact with students who are most likely to drop out, be interlocked with other programs and services, be interlocked with other programs and services, have a strategy of engagement using qualified staff have a strategy of engagement using qualified staff focus on the affective and cognitive needs of the student as suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. focus on the affective and cognitive needs of the student as suggested by Levitz et al [*] and others. be a catalyst for changes in institutional culture and student attitudes regarding completion of programmes. be a catalyst for changes in institutional culture and student attitudes regarding completion of programmes. * Levitz, R., Lee, N & Richter, B.J., 1999, New Directions for Higher Education 108:31-49 Tinto V.; 1993, "Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition" ( 2 nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

4. ELSU Project Report: Background Information. Academic year commencing September : Higher Certificate in Electronic Engineering Higher Certificate in Mechanical Engineering, Electro- Mechanical Systems Higher Certificate in Mechanical Engineering Ordinary Degree in Mechanical EngineeringSchool 2003711390 174 2004621470 146 2005332754 114 200650304923152 200730 4328131 200841266716150

5. Partitioning of Students by Mathematics and Physics Summary description of partition category Group 1 C (OLC) grade or higher in Maths and studied LC Physics Group 2 C (OLC) grade or higher in Maths and didn't study LC Physics Group 3 D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics Group 4 D (OLC) Maths and didn't study LC Physics Group 5 Not Trackable

6. 2003-2004 First Year cohort in Higher Certificates in School of Engineering

7. % in each partition Commencin g first year in September of: C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics C grade or higher in Maths and didn't study LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and didn't study LC Physics Not Trackable Number of Students on 1 st Year Engineering Certificate Courses 200331.0%29.3%7.5%25.3%6.9% 174 200419.9%39.7%15.8%23.3%1.4% 146 200524.6%29.8%15.8%28.9%0.9% 114 200616.3%33.3%10.1%31.0%9.3% 129 200711.7%34.0%4.9%45.6%3.9% 103 200812.7%41.0%9.7%32.1%4.5% 134

8. Numbers in each partition Commencin g first year in September of: C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics C grade or higher in Maths and didn't study LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and didn't study LC Physics Not Trackable Number of Students on 1 st Year Engineering Certificate Courses 2003 54511344 12174 2004 29582334 2146 2005 28341833 1114 2006 21431340 12129 2007 1235547 4103 2008 17551343 6134

9. Comments 1.the decrease in the number of students studying Leaving Certificate Physics is a point of note (and concern). 2.offering of the ab-initio Ordinary Degree in Mechanical Engineering has led to a marked decrease from September 2006 onwards in the number of students in the category C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics (decreased from 31% in 2003 to 12.7% in 2008). 3.number of students in the D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics is consistently the smallest category and therefore is expected to be influenced greatly by small changes in student performance as one student passing or not passing in this category will have a larger effect in percentage terms when considering pass rates for this category of student.

10. Changes Learning Support changes: 2003ELSU set-up with pro- active flexible supports 2006 ELSU expanded to Science 2006 ELSU becomes LSU 2007 LSU becomes CELT 2010 CELT loses key staff Cert changes: 2006 ab-initio Ordinary Degree in Mechanical Engineering introduced 2008 re-designed Cert introduced 2011 changes to entry standards and early engagement

11. Indicators of student success?? 1.Performance in Leaving Certificate Mathematics and having studied Physics in Leaving Certificate as indicators of first year success. 2.Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 3.First in family to college as an indicator of success.

12. Performance of students in each partition category: Commencing first year in September of: C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics C grade or higher in Maths and didn't study LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and studied LC Physics D (OLC) Maths and didn't study LC Physics Overall pass rate: 2003 90.7%70.6%30.8%40.9%63.8% 2004 65.5%56.9%56.5%38.2%53.4% 2005 71.4%52.9%50.0%21.2%47.4% 2006 52.4%48.8%38.5%37.5%43.4% 2007 50.0%37.1%80.0%8.5%29.1% 2008 70.6%52.7%30.8%25.6%43.3%

13. Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 1 Maths Head-start Mathematics Head-Start Workshops % Attending% Not attending 31.3%68.7% % pass rate of those attending Maths Head-start: % pass rate of those NOT attending Maths Head-start: % pass rate overall 200864.3%33.7%43.3% Proportions passing first year by attendance at 2008 Mathematics Head- start Workshop with overall passing rate Maths grade on entry % of this category passing who attended Maths Head-start in 2008 % of this category passing who did not attend Maths Head-start in 2008 C grade or higher in (OLC) Maths 80.0% of 25 students44.7% of 47 students D grade ( OLC) Mathematics 42.9% of 14 students21.4% of 42 students Proportion of students in each Maths grade category passing first year

14. Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 1 Physics Head-start Physics Head-Start Workshops % Attending% Not attending 32.8%67.2% % pass rate of those attending Physics Head-start: % pass rate of those NOT attending Physics Head- start: % pass rate overall 2008 68.1%31%43.3% Proportions passing first year by attendance at 2008 Physics Head-start Workshop with overall passing rate At risk due to Physics grade on entry % of this category passing who attended Head-start in Physics % of this category passing who did not attend Head-start in Physics had studied LC Physics 75.0% of 8 students45.5% of 22 students had NOT studied LC Physics 68.8% of 32 students27.3% of 66 students Proportion of students by physics or not at LC passing first year

15. Student interest/early engagement as indicators of success 2 Attendance at water rocket event at end of week 1 of semester 1. Proportion of students attending or not the water rocket orientation session: AttendingNot attending Total number of students HC Mech or EM 44.1%55.9%93 Comparison of student first year performance between those attending and not attending the water rocket orientation session: % pass rate of those attending water rocket event % pass rate of those NOT attending water rocket event: % pass HC Mech or EM 61%23.1%39.9%

16. First in family to college as an indicator of success Proportions of students passing in categories based on answering the first in family survey question Commencing first year in September of: Proportion of students passing overall. Proportion of students passing who answered YES to First in family to go to third level question. Proportion of students passing who answered NO to First in family to go to third level question. Proportion of students passing who Didn’t Answer First in family to go to third level question 2006 43.4% 43.8%41.4%44.1% 2007 29.1% 45.5%37.1%15.2% 2008 43.3% 80%62.1%28.2%

17. Conclusions from ELSU report Factors which must be considered in providing students with the best opportunities of achieving success in first year engineering: Mathematics level ( local and national evidence) Physics studied previously Early engagement See Recommendations Slide Later

18. Implications (in the wider context of retention debate) for Maths Support Centres: Recent HEA report ‘A Study of Progression in Irish Higher Education’ Change to the funding model One day conference launching report: 28/10/10 Thought provoking presentations from among others :Prof. Vincent Tinto from the US, Dr Ted Fleming NUIM and Dr. Sean Mc Donagh. See http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1386 http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1386 International context as highlighted by Professor Vincent Tinto

19. International context as highlighted by Professor Vincent Tinto at HEA conference. 1.Conditions for Student Retention 2. Forms of Effective Practice 3. Lessons learnt Enhancing Student Retention: Lessons Learned in the United States Vincent Tinto Distinguished University Professor Syracuse University

20. Tinto: Conditions for Student Retention. Expectations – high expectations Implications for need for care in phrasing around supports Alignment/connection of academic supports with classroom experience: ‘contextualised academic support’ Frequent assessment AND feedback: EARLY assessment – 3-4 weeks at the LATEST Student involvement in academic and social life Having a friend

21. Tinto: Forms of Effective Practice. WHAT to provide 1.Advising 2.Financial, academic and social supports Supplemental Instruction http://www.umkc.edu/cad/si Embedded academic supports http://www.highereducation.org/reports/Policy_Practice/IBEST.pdf KEY FOR EITHER is linking to a particular class

22. Tinto: Forms of Effective Practice. WHAT to provide ctd. 3.Learning Communities Particularly effective http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/home.asp http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/home.asp Linked classes WHEN to provide Early in first year Signals Project at Purdue University http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/signals/ http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/signals/

23. Tinto: Lessons Learnt Effective Higher Education Institutes:  Focus on first year  Pursue intentional structured and systemic action Retention is everyones business Across boundary co-operation Don’t invest in discrete unconnected actions  Go for institutional change to embrace learning communities etc.

24. Recommendations in ITTD  Review the entrance level for the certificate  Structure of the first weeks of the student experience in a way that students are encouraged to engage immediately a)Establish study groups in 1 st year b)CA in Week 3 in every module (15min test) with immediate feedback –to drive them into a study group and to give clear indication of who is not participating actively) c)PAL concept d)Orientation week refined to be just getting started with team building exercises, key engineering skills, i.e, calculators, library visits etc built in.  Mechanism which can react proactively to the needs of students who are not immediately engaging with their course of studies. - CELT

25. For Maths Learning Centres……  Seek to be a key catalyst in retention efforts across HEIs – ideally positioned to influence.  MLCs more pro-actively engage with Depts to promote the structuring of the first weeks of the student experience in a way that students are encouraged to engage immediately a)Establish study groups in 1 st year b)CA in Week 3 in Maths module (15min test) with immediate feedback –to drive them into a study group and to give clear indication of who is not participating actively) c)Active promotion of Maths Learning Centre facilities in weeks 1 and 2 ( now in a context of the early CA)