1 Learning Support Services Program Analysis and Discussion of ...

Learning Support Services Program Analysis and Discussion of Educational Accomplishments and Concerns Academic Year 2008-09 Prepared by Holly Gritsch de Cordova Charis Herzon Rex Chung Rebecca Anderson Introduction At the end of each academic year, Learning Support Services (LSS) presents a report to the UCSC community summarizing student utilization and evaluation data, as well as describing apparent relationships between students’ choice to use Modified Supplemental Instruction and/or tutoring and their academic achievement. It is our intent to present an accurate analysis of our programs and services with particular emphasis on including frank discussions of areas of concern regarding our need to revise existing and/or develop new programs to better meet the academic needs of UCSC students. Thus, the specific focus of this year’s annual report will be on analyzing our progress toward increasing the educational effectiveness of Learning Support Services at UCSC and suggesting potential research studies and academic support program options to improve our effectiveness. Besides Learning Support Services program utilization data, this report will also include some analysis of educational achievement data across student groups and some current policies and procedures at UCSC that Learning Support Services sees as especially academically challenging for particular groups of students. Guiding Purpose of Learning Support Services The purpose of Learning Support Services at the University of California Santa Cruz is to provide students with discipline-specific academic support services such that they can develop effective and appropriate critical/analytic thinking, academic reading, academic writing, and quantitative problem solving skills in order to become intellectually engaged and academically successful. Therefore, we hire and train over 300 student tutors and Modified Supplemental Instruction learning assistants each academic year to assist students to master independent learning techniques and course content to enhance their success in specific courses. To ensure a close relationship between individual faculty members and academic departments, Learning Support Services establishes partnerships through which to develop, implement, and evaluate our course-specific academic support services. Learning Support Services Ongoing Programs and Activities, Academic Year 2008-09: • Tutoring for all students • Modified Supplemental Instruction attached to approximately 40 courses each quarter • Small, four-hour sections and Modified Supplemental Instruction support for Math 2, College Algebra and Math 3, Pre-Calculus (in partnership with the Mathematics Department)

1

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Required group writing tutoring for all students enrolled in ELWR non-satisfied Core course sections (in partnership with the Writing Program) One-to-one writing tutoring for each student enrolled in Writing 20, Writing 21, and Writing 23, required courses for students who have not yet satisfied the ELWR requirement (in partnership with the Writing Program) Two sections of Writing 22A each fall, a course in grammar and editing designed for English Language Learners (in partnership with the Writing Program) A tutor training course designed for students tutoring for Writing 20 and Writing 21, Writing 159, which contributes to assisting a large number of English Language Learners (in partnership with the Writing Program) Group tutoring in selected Writing 2, Rhetoric and Inquiry, classes (in partnership with the Writing Program) One-to-one writing tutoring for students enrolled in Writing 2 and classes across the curriculum (in partnership with the Writing Program) Drop-in writing tutoring (in partnership with the Writing Program) A writing mentorship program for transfer and reentry students, WRITE (in partnership with STARS) Writing intensive support for LALS 100A and 100B (in partnership with the Latin American and Latino Studies Department), a model of writing intensive support for courses in the Social Sciences and Humanities Intensive Supplemental Instruction support for Biology 20A (in partnership with the Biology Department) College-specific academic support programs offered at individual colleges, currently including a writing center at Kresge College and academic mentoring/instructional support for Math 11A/B and 19A/B at Oakes, Eight, Crown, and Merrill Colleges (in partnership with the colleges and ACE) A required tutor/MSI learning assistant training class for all new Learning Support Services employees each year, Community Studies 193G A required tutor/MSI learning assistant training program for all Learning Support Services employees each quarter Weekly curriculum and instructional strategies development meetings for learning assistants working in intensive programs including Math 2 and 3, LALS 100A and B, and other similar programs when offered A two-day academic skills development program for incoming transfer and reentry students (in partnership with STARS) Development and implementation of the academic skills development portion of the preenrollment summer/fall EOP Bridge program (in partnership with EOP) Early intervention and intensive tutoring opportunities for disabled students (in partnership with the DRC) Extensive, on-going data collection regarding students’ academic performance shared with faculty and staff through forums such as colloquia on teaching and learning, department meetings, etc. Extensive, on-going program evaluation data shared with student tutors and MSI learning assistants and the larger campus community Ongoing leadership and participation on ARC Committees

2

New Learning Support Services Programs, Academic Year 2008-09: • •

• • • • •

Developed and implemented Math 99F, a tutor-assisted on-line ALEKS software algebra review program to assist students with insufficient algebra skills for success in Math 3 Developed and implemented REAP, a Learning Support Services-College partnership program offering students in academic difficulty four components: time management skills, tutoring for all classes, special examination reviews, and increased contact with their College advisors In coordination with Professor Don Potts, developed and implemented a support model of weekly, small group learning sessions that students in Biology 20C attended regularly throughout the quarter Assumed programmatic and financial responsibility for the popular drop-in math tutoring program as of spring 2009 (the Math Department no longer has the staff or the funds to maintain this historically popular program) Expanded our support for upper-division, writing-intensive classes developing peer group tutoring models for Anthropology and Literature classes Offered learning communities for transfer students in Literature 101 and Biology 105 Restructured our tutor training program: revised the reader and course syllabus for the fall class including more emphasis on cultural diversity and discipline-specific, interactive study strategies, and increased the number of small-group, weekly class meetings; restructured and improved the winter quarter mentorship activities and created a number of training-related projects and activities for tutors to choose to focus on during spring quarter

Learning Support Services Student Utilization Data As has been a trend since the 2000-01 academic year when the Modified Supplemental Instruction program began and tutoring services were offered to UCSC students beyond EOP and Oakes College, student utilization of Learning Support Services has increased each year. After the passage of Measure 30 in spring 2007 (through which the students guaranteed funding to Learning Support Services), student utilization of all of the Learning Support Services programs and services grew substantially during the 2007-08 academic year. Student utilization of Learning Support Services continued to expand during the 2008-09 academic year; 37% of the UCSC undergraduate students used one or more of the Learning Support Services-sponsored programs. As the UCSC student enrollment increased 5% from fall 2007 to fall 2008, our actual increase in utilization from 2007-08 to 2008-09 was 11%. If we adjust the data to reflect the increase in enrollment, then the increase in student utilization is 6%. Table 1 presents an overview of student utilization data by quarter.

3

Table 1 Learning Support Services Overall Utilization Academic Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Contact Hours Cost Academic Year Number of Students (% of Total Students)* 2007-08 5064 (35%) 65,694 hours $350,338 2008-09 5624 (37%) 76,081 hours $431,309 % Change +11% +16% +23% * Note: The total undergraduate student body was 14,381 in 2007-08 and 15,125 in 2008-09.

Quarter & Year

Contact Hours

Cost

Fall 2007 Fall 2008 % Change

Number of Students (% of Total Students) 3,251 (23%) 3,595 (24%) +11%

30,264 hours 30,880 hours +2%

$151,060 $175,040 +16%

Winter 2008 Winter 2009 % Change

2,411 (17%) 2,868 (19%) +19%

18,286 hours 25,184 hours +38%

$109,443 $139,083 +27%

Spring 2008

2,411 (17%)

17,144 hours

$89,835

Spring 2009 % Change

2,267 (15%) -6%

20,018 hours +17%

$117,186 +30%

When comparing utilization data between the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years, a few interesting similarities and differences are discernable. The increased student utilization during 2008-09 resulted in a 16% increase in student-tutor/MSI learning assistant contact hours and a 23% increase in student tutor/MSI learning assistant cost. Some of this increased cost can be explained by a 1.5 % raise given to Tutors and learning assistants as of October 1, 2008 per their contract with the University. Additionally, Learning Support Services increased our required tutor training activities in winter and spring quarter (for which Tutors and learning assistants are paid) in order to improve their educational effectiveness. During fall and winter quarters 200809, the number of students, student-tutor/MSI learning assistant contact hours, and cost increased. However, in spring quarter, the number of students using Learning Support Services decreased, yet the contact hours increased by 17% and the cost of tutoring/MSI increased by 30%. It appears that the students who did take advantage of our academic assistance used the services more frequently than in the previous spring. Table 2 presents overall EOP student utilization of Learning Support Services programs and services for the 2008-09 academic year as compared with the 2007-08 academic year. While the EOP undergraduate population at UCSC accounts for approximately 23% of the undergraduate

4

students, EOP students consistently use Learning Support Services at a higher rate than their proportion of the student body. That being said, Learning Support Services is continually engaged in strategic planning with EOP and the Colleges to increase EOP student utilization of our programs since, as data near the end of this report will graphically illustrate, EOP students at UCSC are not achieving educational excellence at the same rate as their more historically economically privileged peers. Table 2 EOP Student Utilization of Learning Support Services Programs and Services Academic Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Academic Year % Utilization by EOP Student EOP Students (N) Contact Hours (% of Total Contact Hours) 2007-08 30% (1496) 23,882 hours (36%) 2008-09 31% (1725) 28,888 hours (38%)

Quarter & Year

% Utilization by EOP Students (N)

Fall 2008 Winter 2009 Spring 2009

34% (1208) 33% (945) 34% (760)

EOP Student Contact Hours (% of Total Contact Hours) 12,207 hours (40%) 9,323 hours (37%) 7,358 hours (37%)

Although the percent of EOP students seeking academic support from Learning Support Services remained the same during both the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years, the number of hours that students spent with tutors and/or MSI learning assistants increased in 2008-09. Learning Support Services continues to work closely with the EOP counselors and the College advisors to encourage EOP students to seek academic support in order to both ensure their academic persistence and improvement and increase their quarterly and cumulative GPAs. Yet, we can not yet claim adequate success. Another group of students of special concern to Learning Support Services are transfer and reentry students. Community College transfer students often find their first quarter at UCSC challenging as they adjust to the academic demands of a university as compared to their community college coursework. Unfortunately, Learning Support Services is still not attracting as many of these students to our programs as we would like. Table 3 presents utilization data for transfer and re-entry students for the 2008-09 academic year as compared with the 2007-08 academic year.

5

Table 3 Transfer and Re-entry Students’ Utilization of Learning Support Services Academic Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Academic Year % Utilization by STARS Student STARS Students Contact Hours (N) (% of Total Contact Hours) 2007-08 11% (557) 5,676 hours (9%) 2008-09 12% (696) 7,269 hours (10%)

Quarter & Year

% Utilization by STARS Students (N)

Fall 2008 Winter 2009 Spring 2009

9% (329) 13% (377) 12% (272)

STARS Student Contact Hours (% of Total Contact Hours) 2,457 hours (8%) 2,899 hours (11%) 1,913 hours (10%)

Transfer and re-entry students account for approximately 16.3% of the UCSC undergraduate population. Yet, during the 2008-09 academic year only 12% of Learning Support Services student utilization was by transfer and re-entry students. This use was up from 11% utilization in 2007-08. Although only improving slightly, a positive trend in increasing utilization emerged in 2008-09, as the transfer and re-entry student use of Learning Support Services programs and services increased each quarter as compared with the previous year. Learning Support Services continues to work closely with Services for Transfer and Re-Entry Students (STARS) to design academic support programs especially suited to the needs of transfer and re-entry students and to publicize these programs to this group. Overall, the student utilization of Learning Support Services (37%) is quite high. On the other hand, as is illustrated by the above discussion of EOP and STARS students, Learning Support Services has made progress but is still not as successful as we need to be in attracting students likely to experience significant academic challenges due to their backgrounds of educational under preparedness. Learning Support Services Staff The staffing in Learning Support Services reflects our commitment to supporting students as both teachers and learners. During the 2008-09 academic year, Learning Support Services employed 326 students in positions as Modified Supplemental Instruction learning assistants, general tutors, writing tutors, and student office assistants. These 326 student staff members were hired, trained, supervised, observed, evaluated, and mentored by the five professional staff members: a Director, an Assistant Director, two Modified Supplemental Instruction/Tutor Coordinators, and an Office Manager (50% time). Not only did Learning Support Services serve 37% of the undergraduate students during the year, the highest number of student utilization in

6

the UC system, we accomplished this with the fewest number of professional staff in a UC Learning Support Center. Furthermore, 326 students became accomplished educators. Modified Supplemental Instruction Program Student Utilization Data The original intent of the Modified Supplemental Instruction (MSI) program at UCSC was to offer students the opportunity to participate in small, peer-guided learning groups as an educational addition to the large lecture and discussion section instructional delivery system prevalent at UCSC. The courses targeted for MSI support tend to be lower-division gateway courses needed to enter a major, and upper-division courses that students must take to transition into more advanced study. The learning assistants are students who have previously taken the course and have been recommended by an instructor. They participate in ongoing tutor training each quarter, attend all class lectures, and lead small groups (maximum 10 students) in interactive learning activities related to course-assigned reading, writing, and problem-solving activities. When the MSI program began at UCSC in fall 2000, the peer-led, group learning sessions were to allow no more than 10 students per session. Likewise, exam review sessions were to be small, serving students who had consistently attended MSI sessions. For several years as the program was still developing and becoming a permanent part of UCSC academic culture, MSI weekly and exam review sessions remained manageable and educationally appropriate. However, in recent years, student utilization patterns have changed dramatically. In some classes (Chemistry and Economics, for example) in the 2007-08 academic year, MSI sessions began to attract over 20 students and MSI exam review sessions sometimes were attended by 60 to 150 students. Obviously, this influx of students creating large group sessions rather than small peer-guided learning groups was not in keeping with the goals of the MSI program, nor were undergraduate MSI learning assistants appropriately prepared to offer interactive learning experiences to these large groups of students. Therefore, beginning in the fall of 2008, Learning Support Services began to implement new strategies to regain the small group session environment and peerguided interactive learning format essential for educationally appropriate and successful supplemental instruction programs. We carefully curtailed the advertisement of MSI exam review sessions, inviting only students who had attended weekly MSI sessions on a somewhat regular basis. Additionally, we hired and trained additional students who had previously completed the MSI-supported course successfully and trained them as MSI co-leaders. They do not attend class lectures as do the MSI learning assistants, but they do assist the MSI learning assistants to lead any weekly group that is over 10 students and to lead the exam review sessions. As the MSI utilization data in the following data tables will illustrate, this educationally necessary restructuring of the Learning Support Services Modified Supplemental Instruction program has increased the program costs and, in some cases, decreased the student utilization data. The decrease in student utilization data occurred because only students who attend MSI regularly are invited to the exam review sessions, whereas, in the past, some students attended only the exam review sessions. The staff of Learning Support Services believes that we have implemented educationally appropriate strategies to protect the goals and academic integrity of the highly popular and successful UCSC MSI program.

7

Table 4 presents overall MSI utilization data for academic year 2008-09. The overall utilization of MSI was 28%; on average more than one quarter of students in each class participated in the program. The average cost per student was $23.66, a very reasonable per-person amount if, indeed, MSI increases students’ academic performance. More students participated in MSI during fall quarter than in winter or spring. This could be explained by the enthusiasm and determination with which many students choose to meet the challenges of fall quarter and by the gradual Learning Support Services implementation of more educationally appropriate policies regarding attendance at MSI exam review sessions. Some of the review sessions scheduled in the fall quarter were inadvertently advertised to entire large classes in spite of our best efforts to prevent this. In general, the Learning Support Services staff and the MSI learning assistants believe that if students attend more MSI sessions their academic performance will improve. Table 4 Overview of MSI Utilization Data Academic Year 2008-09 # Course Total # Percentage Sections # MSI students of MSI Cost per Total MSI Quarter Supported Students in classes usage Student Cost 36 Fall 2,272 7,305 31% $17.00 $38,631.70 47 Winter 2,165 7,914 27% $24.57 $53,191.79 39 Spring 1,604 6,180 26% $31.86 $51,100.68 Note: In Table 4, students are counted once for each class for which they participate in MSI. MSI data for Math 2, Math 3, LALS 100A and LALS 100B will be included and described in data later in this report and is not reflected in these numbers. Table 5 compares MSI utilization across academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The number of students who attended MSI in fall and winter of 2008-09 increased slightly from the previous academic year, but the spring quarter difference was perplexing. Seven percent fewer students used MSI in spring 2009, yet the student contact hours increased by 14% as compared to spring 2008. So, students who used MSI in spring 2009 sought more frequent assistance than their peers in spring 2008, yet fewer students in spring 2009 chose to participate in the MSI program. Why this occurred remains an unanswered question for Learning Support Services. Table 5 MSI Overall Utilization and Cost Comparing Academic Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 Total Total Cost Academic # Course # Students in % Class Year Sections Class Who Utilization Contact Supported Used MSI Hours 2007-08 113 5,475 28% 30,993 $112,351.11 2008-09 121 6,041 28% 36,074 $142,924.17 Note: In Table 4, students are counted once for each class for which they participate in MSI. MSI data for Math 2, Math 3, LALS 100A and LALS 100B will be included and described in data later in this report and is not reflected in these numbers.

8

The cost of the MSI program continues to grow each year. As of October 1, 2008, tutors and MSI learning assistants were awarded a 1.5 % raise as part of contract negotiations with the university. Additionally, the educational modifications to the program that Learning Support Services has made to keep both weekly MSI sessions and MSI exam review sessions small have added cost to the program as it continues to attract more students. It may be that the current UCSC trend toward increasing lecture and discussion section class sizes and eliminating many discussion sections from classes has contributed to the increased popularity of the MSI program. Learning Support Services attached MSI to 121 classes during the 2008-09 academic year, and Table 6 presents an overview of student utilization. The MSI supported courses are organized by academic divisions. Table 6 includes the average number of times that students attended MSI sessions for each class. The average number of sessions attended was 3.36. As sessions tend to be only an hour and ten minutes each, students were most likely to spend only around four hours in interactive learning groups for a class throughout the entire quarter. It seems obvious that Learning Support Services, the MSI learning assistants and the UCSC faculty need to encourage students to attend MSI sessions on a more regular basis, weekly being highly recommended. Table 6 MSI Course by Course Utilization Data Academic Year 2008-09

Division Courses

# Classes Supported 2008-09

#Students Who Used MSI

Total # Students in class

Percentage of MSI Usage

Average # Sessions Students Attended

Arts MUSC 030A MUSC 030B MUSC 030C

1 1 1

19 19 14

52 40 31

37% 48% 45%

6.32 8.11 6.50

2 3 1

79 117 17

192 618 37

41% 19% 46%

3.90 2.56 3.06

3

244

398

61%

6.06

3

232

417

56%

5.02

1 1 1 3 1

42 2 31 82 20

120 19 69 241 40

35% 11% 45% 34% 50%

3.98 5.00 3.71 2.86 1.75

Engineering AMS 003 AMS 005 AMS 010 AMS/ECON 011A AMS/ECON 011B CMPE 016 CMPE 100 CMPS 012A CMPS 012B CMPS 101

9

Table 6 continued

Division Courses Humanities LING 050 LING 053 LIT 101 PHIL 009 SPAN 003T WRIT 002 *

# Classes Supported 2008-09

#Students Who Used MSI

Total # Students in class

Percentage of MSI Usage

Average # Sessions Students Attended

1 1 1 3 1 14

15 23 60 73 2 365

178 83 169 434 17 372

8% 28% 36% 17% 12% 98%

2.33 3.74 4.75 4.59 1.00 7.37

220 868 633 144 1,562 1,022 807 103 500 407 170 978 767 776 219

24% 25% 35% 26% 36% 25% 27% 5% 13% 14% 6% 22% 28% 22% 41%

4.26 3.13 3.63 3.43 3.01 3.96 2.91 2.40 4.11 3.40 1.55 2.95 3.10 1.94 2.67

Physical & Biological Sciences 1 53 BIOE 020C 3 216 BIOL 020A 3 220 BIOL 105 1 37 BIOL 115 563 CHEM 001A 4 258 CHEM 001B 3 220 CHEM 001C 3 1 5 CHEM 001P 64 CHEM 108A 2 58 CHEM 108B 2 11 CHEM 108C 1 217 MATH 011A 4 211 MATH 011B 3 4 170 MATH 022 1 89 PHYS 005A PHYS 005B PHYS 005C PHYS 006A PHYS 006B PHYS 006C PHYS 007A PHYS 007B

1 1 2 3 2 1

25 27 182 72 124 62

151 137 632 598 413 148

17% 20% 29% 12% 30% 42%

4.56 4.48 3.09 1.96 4.72 4.79

1

33

138

24%

1.61

10

Table 6 continued

Division Courses Social Sciences ANTH 152 * ANTH 194A* ANTH 194U* ECON 001 ECON 002 ECON 100A ECON 100B ECON 113 EDUC 092A PSYC 001 PSYC 002 PSYC 010 SOCY 105A SOCY 105B

# Classes Supported 2008-09

#Students Who Used MSI

Total # Students in class

Percentage of MSI Usage

Average # Sessions Students Attended

1 1 1 3 3 5

53 18 19 139 281 329

56 19 17 1,312 1,248 651

95% 95% ** 11% 23% 51%

2.67 5.78 2.84 1.93 2.15 3.33

4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1

262 203 62 95 92 50 35 30

587 581 427 822 249 117 214 179

45% 35% 15% 12% 37% 43% 16% 17%

3.28 2.74 2.18 2.12 4.00 2.02 3.57 2.80

Grand Total 121 6,041 21,399 28% * Students had required participation in these courses. ** More students used the program than were enrolled in the course.

3.36

Table 7 and Figure 1 contain comparisons of the course pass rates for students who attended MSI with the overall course pass rates and those for students who did not choose to attend MSI. Each quarter the overall pass rate for students who attended MSI was higher than the pass rate for students who chose not to participate in the program.

Table 7 Course by Course Pass Rate Comparisons of Students Who Did and Did Not Attend MSI Academic Year 2008-09 MSI Whole NonCourse Whole NonMSI Whole NonMSI Fall Class MSI Winter Class Class MSI Winter Winter Spring Spring Fall Fall Arts MUSC 30A 83% 85% 79% MUSC 30B 90% 95% 84% MUSC 30C 97% 94%

MSI Spring

100%

11

Table 7 continued Course Whole NonClass MSI Fall Fall Engineering AMS 3 77% 70% AMS 5 93% 92% AMS 10 73% 65% AMS/ECON 78% 72% 11A AMS/ECON 77% 70% 11B CMPE 16 83% 82% CMPE 100 CMPS 12A CMPS 12B 69% 67% CMPS 101 Humanities LING 50 LING53 89% 89% PHIL 9 73% 73% Physical & Biological Sciences BIOE 20C BIOL 20A 72% 73% BIOL 105 79% 76% BIOL 115 CHEM 1A 70% 68% CHEM 1B CHEM 1C 77% 73% CHEM 1P 99% 99% CHEM 108A 89% 89% CHEM 108B CHEM 108C MATH 11A 75% 73% MATH 11B 85% 82% MATH 22 90% 89% PHYS 5A 84% 83% PHYS 5B PHYS 5C PHYS 6A 91% 91% PHYS 6B PHYS 6C 89% 90% PHYS 7A PHYS 7B

MSI Fall

Whole Class Winter

NonMSI Winter

MSI Winter

Whole Class Spring

NonMSI Spring

MSI Spring

88% 96% 82% 83%

79% 96%

75% 96%

86% 100%

92%

90%

100%

87%

86%

89%

91%

91%

92%

82%

89%

83%

93%

91%

91%

89%

88%

87%

100% 70% 83%

68% 79%

72% 92%

91%

90%

94%

86% 75%

84% 72%

92% 78%

95% 88%

94% 87%

97% 89%

94% 85% 83% 49% 75%

93% 85% 82% 47% 76%

95% 91% 89% 59% 68%

94%

93%

96%

97% 96%

97% 96%

100% 98%

91%

91%

94%

88%

73%

90% 74%

70% 83% 72% 85% 100% 92%

79% 91% 92% 86%

94%

77% 68%

81% 55%

71% 80%

93%

93%

93%

68%

69%

60%

89% 84% 80% 78% 69% 92%

87% 83% 77% 80% 66% 93%

92% 87% 88% 74% 76% 90%

81% 96%

81% 96%

78% 100%

76% 90% 90%

75% 89% 90%

78% 92% 92%

92%

92%

95%

82% 95%

83% 95%

76% 94%

92%

90%

95%

88%

12

Table 7 continued Course Whole NonClass MSI Fall Fall Social Sciences ECON 1 89% 90% ECON 2 90% 90% ECON 100A 87% 85% ECON 100B 92% 87% ECON 113 84% 80% EDUC 92A 95% 94% LALS 100A PSYC 1 93% 93% PSYC 2 PSYC 10 97% 97% SOCY 105A 88% 89% SOCY 105B Average 84% 82%

MSI Fall

Whole Class Winter

NonMSI Winter

MSI Winter

Whole Class Spring

NonMSI Spring

MSI Spring

79% 89% 88% 97% 90% 100%

94% 94% 89% 92% 88%

93% 95% 85% 87% 87%

96% 93% 95% 97% 89%

82% 91% 87% 93% 94%

82% 91% 78% 90% 93%

81% 97% 96% 98% 97%

96% 91% 84%

93% 91% 80%

98% 86% 90%

80% 88%

80% 85%

77% 94%

98% 87%

97% 85%

100% 88%

87%

85%

90%

91% 96% 83% 86%

Figure 1 Pass Rates for MSI Supported Courses, Academic Year 2008-09 92.0%

89.8%

90.0% 88.4% 88.0% 86.7%

86.6%

86.5%

86.0%

85.4%

Fall Winter Spring

85.1%

84.2% 84.0% 82.5% 82.0%

80.0%

78.0% Whole class

Non-MSI

MSI

To recap the essential points in the data thus far, during the 2008-09 academic year, an average of 28% of students enrolled in classes supported by MSI chose to participate in the program. In 75% of these classes, the pass rate for students who attended MSI was higher than it was for

13

students who did not participate in the MSI program. In 22 classes, however, the MSI student pass rates were not higher than those of the other students. Learning Support Services can only conjecture as to why this might be so. If, indeed, the MSI program is attracting students who are experiencing difficulty in a class, which is one of the program’s goals, then it is likely that some of these students will not increase their understanding of the course material sufficiently to pass the course. This could be especially true if these struggling students wait until after the first major course assignment (mid-term exam, paper, etc.) to determine that they should seek academic support. Other factors that influence the effectiveness of the MSI program are the skill of the learning assistant, the relationship between the learning assistant and the instructor, the amount of continual buy-in to the importance of MSI that the instructor shares with the students, the opportunities to demonstrate academic improvement structured into the course syllabus, and other issues of motivation, academic self-efficacy, and academic preparedness experienced by individual students. The professional and student staff of Learning Support Services continually discuss strategies for improving the MSI program and look to UCSC students, faculty, and administrators for new ideas and suggestions that will assist us to attract more students and increase the academic achievement of all MSI participants. As Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) students tend to come to UCSC from underperforming high schools and from low-income families as the first in those families to attend a university, Learning Support Services works with the EOP program to encourage EOP students to take advantage of MSI. As Table 8 illustrates, Learning Support Services is only minimally successful in this endeavor. With 23% of UCSC students being EOP designated, their accounting for 30% of the MSI attendance is encouraging, but not adequate as MSI data reveals that students who participate in MSI are, on average, more likely to pass their classes than students who do not. Obviously, Learning Support Services must continue to forge more productive relationships with the Colleges, academic departments, and EOP student advisors. Table 8 EOP Student Utilization of the MSI Program Academic Year 2008-09 Quarter Total Number of Number of EOP Students Using MSI* Students Using MSI * Fall 2,291 673 Winter 2,142 634 Spring 1,670 499 *This number is unduplicated for each quarter.

% of MSI Program Usage by EOP Students 29% 30% 30%

Students who do take advantage of MSI are very pleased with the program. Table 9 summarizes the program evaluation data.

14

Table 9 MSI Program Evaluation Academic Year 2008-09 Percentage % of students who rated MSI as “very helpful,” a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale % of students who would participate in MSI again % of students who would recommend MSI to a friend % of students who felt MSI improved their test scores % of students who felt MSI improved their reading comprehension % of students who felt MSI helped increase their self-confidence % of students who stated that MSI increased their interest in the course % of students who felt MSI increased their understanding of course concepts % of students who felt MSI improved their overall course performance Total number of evaluations N =971

92% 97% 99% 84% 25% 70% 66% 93% 89%

In summary, the MSI program is attracting more than one-fourth of the students enrolled in MSI supported classes, the students who attend the program pass these classes at a higher rate than the students who do not participate in MSI 75% of the time, and the MSI student evaluation data is very positive. Yet, Learning Support Services still has improvements to make. We know that the quality of the learning assistant and his/her relationship with the professor are critical factors in making MSI sessions excellent. Furthermore, we need to keep sessions small, control the exam review process so that it assists MSI attendees exclusively, and encourage more students in general and particularly more EOP students to take advantage of the small group, peer-guided learning sessions offered under the label MSI. Discussion of General Tutoring Services Each year an increasing number of UCSC students request the services of tutors to assist them to understand course material and to improve their academic performances. The 47% overall increase in the number of students who used tutoring between the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years is noteworthy, as seen in Table 10. Table 10 also presents and a quarter-byquarter description of student tutorial utilization data. Table 10 General Tutoring Utilization Data Comparing Academic Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 Academic Year # of Student Contact Hours Courses Count 2007-08 199 1,183 5682 2008-09 257 1,736 9768 % Change +29% +47% +72%

15

General Tutoring Utilization Data for Academic Year 2008-09 Student Contact Quarter # of Courses Count Hours Fall 111 609 2,428 Winter 121 832 3,733 Spring 128 751 3,608

Total Cost $ 26,530 $ 41,303 $ 42,118

Students’ utilization of the Learning Support Services tutorial program during 2008-09 indicates some interesting trends. By spring quarter, students were requesting tutoring for many courses that Learning Support Services had not supported during the previous academic years (2007-08 being the previous benchmark for tutorial requests). Also, student participation in the Learning Support Services tutorial program was greatest in the winter quarter, with both winter and spring participation being higher than fall. This is a different utilization pattern than evident in the MSI program data, where the fall was the most heavily attended quarter. The UCSC EOP students used the tutoring program in greater numbers in 2008-09 (656 EOP students), than they did in 2007-08 (478 EOP students). The number of EOP students is an unduplicated count for the year. However, because the overall use of Learning Support Services increased disproportionately to the EOP use, the percentage of Learning Support Services tutorial utilization accounted for by EOP students decreased from 40% in 2007-08 to 38% in 2008-09. Table 11 describes the EOP student use of tutoring in some detail. Table 11 EOP Student Utilization of the General Tutoring Program For Academic Year 2008-09 Quarter & Number of % of Students Year Students Tutored Fall 2008 256 42% Winter 2009 300 36% Spring 2009 317 42% Transfer and re-entry students do not use Learning Support Services tutoring as often as do EOP students, but their utilization patterns for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years share a similar pattern. Although the number of transfer students who utilize tutoring increased each quarter in 2008-09 as compared with the previous academic year, transfer students did not account for as high a percentage of the total Learning Support Services tutor utilization data in 2008-09. This percentage loss is due to the increased number of students tutored at UCSC in 2008-09. Table 12 shows the utilization for the 2008-2009 academic year.

16

Table 12 Transfer and Re-Entry Student Utilization of the General Tutoring Program for Academic Year 2008-09 Quarter & Number of % of Students Year Students Tutored Fall 2008 88 14% Winter 2009 104 12% Spring 2009 101 13%

Students’ use of tutoring varies widely across academic divisions. Figure 2 offers a graphic overview of the comparison between students’ use of tutoring by division during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years.

Course Specific Tutoring, Percent of Student Tutor Contact Hours Figure 2 by Division, 2007-08 Course Specific Tutoring % of Student-Tutor Contact Hours by Division '07-08

Arts 2%

Engineering 6%

Humanities 26%

PBS 53%

Soc Sci 13%

17

Course Specific Tutoring, Percent of Student Tutor Contact Hours Course Specific Tutoring % of Student-Tutor Contact Hours by Division '08-'09 by Division, 2008-09

Art 2%

Engineering 7%

Humanities 25% PBSci 44%

Soc Sci 22%

A few changes occurred that may signal trends in UCSC students’ interest in and success with majors among divisions. In 2008-09, tutoring use by students taking classes in the Physical and Biological Sciences Division decreased, while their use of tutoring in courses in the Social Science Division increased. Of note in Learning Support Services was the increased use of both tutoring and MSI for Economics courses in the 2008-09 academic year. There was also a very small increase in tutoring for courses in the Engineering Division. As has been true for the past 10 years, the largest proportion of tutoring offered by Learning Support Services has been for courses in the Division of Physical and Biological Sciences. Table 13 includes the number of courses in each division for which students requested tutoring during the 2008-09 academic year, the total number of student/tutor contact hours for the course sections, and the cost of tutorial support for the department for the year. Table 13 General Subject Tutoring Course by Course Utilization Data Academic Year 2008-09 Division Number of Contact Course Classes Hours Cost Arts FILM 2 9 $114 HAVC 3 14.75 $217 MUSC 6 80.75 $969 THEA 3 10.75 $149

18

Table 13 continued Division Number of Contact Course Classes Hours Engineering AMS 6 108.75 CMPE 6 163.25 CMPS 6 222.75 ISM 2 7.75 Humanities AMST 3 25 CHIN 5 118 FMST 4 27.5 FREN 5 57.5 GERM 5 75.25 HIS 5 25 HISC 2 2 ITAL 8 306.25 JAPN 3 57 LATN 2 29.75 LING 7 133 LIT 2 9.75 LTCR 1 4.75 LTIN 1 4.5 LTMO 2 6 PHIL 1 41.25 PORT 5 67 RUSS 2 2 SPAN 7 379 WRIT N/A*** 522.5 Physical and Biological Sciences ASTR 1 206 BIOC 2 138.5 BIOE 11 411.5 BIOL 14 514.5 CHEM 9 527.75 EART 3 27.5 ENVS 8 60.5 MATH 17 1,008.25 OCEA 2 110 PHYS 12 399.5

Cost $1,073 $1,518 $2,148 $99 $318 $1,365 $363 $715 $769 $343 $38 $2,722 $617 $206 $1,442 $124 $60 $57 $76 $511 $811 $38 $4,039 $7,410 $1,688 $1,000 $4,014 $5,252 $4,696 $367 $741 $10,452 $943 $3,710

19

Table 13 continued Division Number of Contact Course Classes Hours Social Sciences ANTH 4 85.75 CMMU 8 47.5 ECON 17 1010.5 EDUC 2 83.75 LALS 5 104 LGST 1 33.5 POLI 6 24.75 PSYC 10 96.75 SOCY 10 138.25 *** Includes general writing tutoring.

Cost $611 $490 $10,580 $601 $912 $217 $311 $1,194 $1,648

As was the case for the MSI program, students who make a quarter-long commitment to attending tutoring sessions are usually very pleased with the academic assistance that they receive. Table 14 summarizes the tutor evaluation data collected near the end of each quarter during the 2008-09 academic year. In all categories, students’ satisfaction rates were 93% or above. Table 14 General Subject Tutor Program Evaluation Data Academic Year 2008-09 Percentage % of students who rated the value of the sessions with their tutors as “excellent,” a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale % of students who rated the tutor’s response to questions/needs “excellent,” a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale % of students who rated the tutor’s explanations as “excellent,” a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale % of students who rated the tutor adequately prepared and knowledgeable as “excellent,” a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale % of students who felt the tutor used good examples to explain the material % of students who would recommend this tutor to a friend Total number of evaluations N=634

93% 93% 94% 93% 94% 95%

Learning Support Services is continually concerned about the students who may be discontent with their experiences with their tutors and may decide to abandon their commitment to working with a tutor without communicating their disappointment with the academic support they received to the Learning Support Services staff. Therefore, we have begun to ask students to complete a mid-quarter evaluation using an on-line survey emailed to all students who have signed up to meet with a tutor. To encourage students to offer feedback by completing the survey, we entered the contact information of all respondents (not connected to the actual survey

20

data) into a raffle for UCSC Bookstore certificates. The mid-quarter evaluation provided us with information summarized in Table 15. Table 15 General Subject Tutoring Program Mid-Quarter Evaluation Data Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 Number of “Good” and “Excellent” Responses*

Percentage

Students who rated the tutor’s session attendance and punctuality as “Good” or “Excellent”

229

94%

Students who rated the tutoring sessions effectiveness as “Good” or Excellent”

217

89%

Students who rated the tutor’s explanations as “Good” or “Excellent”

212

87%

Students who rated the tutor adequately prepared and knowledgeable as “Good” or “Excellent”

214

88%

*Choices were “Needs Improvement”, “Satisfactory,” “Good,” and “Excellent.” Total N-value = 244. Learning Support Services sent the mid-quarter evaluation to students during fall and winter quarters and received 244 student responses. As Table 15 illustrates, the students who responded to our mid-quarter evaluation email survey were generally positive about their tutoring sessions. As we anticipated, this data is not quite as laudatory as the end of quarter evaluations. It is also the case that the two evaluation instruments are somewhat different in their questions of students. As one of its projects for the upcoming academic year, Learning Support Services will rethink and reshape the two evaluation instruments so as to more effectively enable students to assess both their personal and educational satisfaction with their tutorial experiences. Learning Support Services/Writing Program Tutoring for ELWR Non-Satisfied UCSC Students The University of California asks all students to demonstrate a consistent standard of writing proficiency as a post-admissions requirement. Students may do this by passing the Analytic Writing Placement Examination (AWPE) prior to beginning their fall classes or by demonstrating writing proficiency equal to that expected on the APWE by enrolling in classes and demonstrating writing proficiency via examination and/or portfolios according to the policies of each UC campus. At UCSC, students must satisfy the Entry Level Writing Requirement (ELWR) by the end of their fourth quarter. Until students have satisfied the ELWR, they are required to enroll in a particular sequence of writing courses. Tutoring is a part of the instructional process within each of these classes, and the design of the tutoring programs 21

as well as the hiring, training, supervising, monitoring, and evaluating of the Writing Assistants is handled by a partnership between the Writing Program and Learning Support Services. In addition to the extensive program for ELWR non-satisfied students, Learning Support Services offers writing tutoring to all UCSC students. Students may schedule weekly appointments with a writing tutor and/or come to one of our drop-in writing tutoring sites. Table 16 illustrates a comparison of the tutor utilization of the ELWR non-satisfied students during the 2008-09 academic year. The students who do not satisfy ELWR by the end of their Core course by exam or by portfolio are required to enroll in Writing 20 in the winter. Those who don’t satisfy ELWR by the end of winter quarter must enroll in Writing 21 in the spring. All students in ELWR non-satisfied Core course sections are required to participate in the group tutoring program, meeting for an hour each week with a tutor-guided peer writing group. EOP students, English Language Learners, and other students experiencing writing challenges were offered one additional hour of individual tutoring per week according to recommendations from their instructors. All students enrolled in Writing 20 were required to participate in 30 minutes of individual tutoring each week, with EOP students and English Language Learners being given one hour each week. All Writing 21 students were required to attend one hour of tutoring each week. If students have not satisfied ELWR by the beginning of their fourth quarter they are required to enroll in Writing 23 and receive one hour of required tutoring each week. In fall 2008, 3,978 students (966, 24%, of whom were EOP students) were enrolled in sections of College Core courses. Of these students, 1,164 (29%) had not satisfied ELWR prior to fall enrollment, 42% of whom were EOP students. Of the students who did not satisfy ELWR by the end of fall quarter and went on to Writing 20 as required, 63% were EOP students. Of the students who had not satisfied ELWR by the end of winter 2009 and went on to Writing 21 as required, 76% were EOP students. As is evident, EOP students are experiencing more difficulty than non-EOP students as they attempt to satisfy the ELWR even though Learning Support Services provides them with extensive tutorial assistance, particularly the half hour of required and half hour of voluntary individual tutoring in Writing 20 and the one additional hour of voluntary individual tutoring in Writing 21. Table 16 ELWR Writing Tutoring Utilization Academic Year 2008-09 Class Quarter & Student Year Count

Percent of Contact Cost Students Hours EOP Core Group* Fall 2008 1124 42% 7,764 $53,411 Core Individual* Fall 2008 385 81% 1,637 $22,289 Writing 20 Winter 2009 348 63% 1,392 $22,610 Writing 21 Spring 2009 63 76% 558 $8,456 Writing 23 Fall 2008 21 29% 159 $2,181 *The data for Core Group and Core Individual exclude Porter College, which did not participate in the same model as the other nine Colleges.

22

The most salient point of interest in this table is the increase in the number of EOP students who are enrolling in and, therefore, receiving tutoring in ELWR non-satisfied writing classes. Several studies (one in print and one in progress) reveal statistically significant relationships indicating that EOP students continue to demonstrate lower levels of academic achievement in writing classes than non-EOP students within ELWR required and post-ELWR satisfaction writing classes. This trend is disturbing. Learning Support Services is continuing to study the writing performance of UCSC students in order to answer the question: At what point do EOP and nonEOP students become indistinguishable as writers based on their academic writing performances? Learning Support Services is carefully studying the academic achievement of the 2008 frosh cohort as they move through the C1 and C2 (UCSC lower division general education required writing proficiency) requirements and take other classes whose course syllabi focus on writing as a means of demonstrating mastery of course content. It is not uncommon to hear students and faculty alike bemoaning the difficulties that students have completing course-specific analytic writing assignments. Yet, as Table 17 illustrates, UCSC students do not seem to be taking advantage of the drop-in writing tutoring available during several hours each week. Table 17 Learning Support Services Drop-In Writing Program Utilization Academic Year 2008-09 Quarter Fall Winter Spring

Student Count 43 39 50

Contact Hours 30 35 37

Use of drop-in writing tutoring was lower during fall and winter quarters of 2008-09. Obviously, Learning Support Services needs to communicate more effectively with faculty, College and Department advisors, and students such that more students seek consultation with writing tutors as part of their writing processes. Learning Support Services/Course and Department/Unit-Specific Partnerships Learning Support Services works with units within Student Affairs, with Professors and Academic Departments, and with the Colleges to identify particular groups of students in need of academic support and to develop specialized programs through which to best address those students’ challenges as learners. This section of our year-end report will briefly describe and critique several of these programs. Learning Support Services Partnerships with Services for Transfer and Re-entry Students, STARS Both STARS and Learning Support Services staff are sensitive to the academic and social challenges facing transfer and re-entry students, particularly during their initial year at UCSC.

23

During the 2008-09 academic year we continued to offer two programs that we sponsor with STARS: the two-day academic skills workshops just before Orientation Week begins and the WRITE program. We also began a new program, offering the opportunity for transfer and reentry students to join peer-guided learning communities. Approximately 160 students (20% of incoming transfer and re-entry students in fall 08) participated in the STARS/Learning Support Services two-day academic skills program that introduces students to some of the important areas of academic difference between the community colleges and UCSC including the library, and provides discipline-specific academic reading and writing workshops, opportunities for academic and career internships, preliminary thoughts around planning for graduate schools, and access to successful UCSC transfer students through major-specific academic advice groups and through panel discussions. The WRITE program offers transfer and re-entry students access to writing mentors who are also transfer and/or re-entry students. The program is a partnership between Learning Support Services and STARS with STARS matching mentors and mentees and assisting with the scheduling of appointments and drop-in tutoring hours. Table 18 summarizes the utilization for the 2008-09 academic year. Although 63 students used the program, it can not be said to have been either educationally productive (too few students participated) or cost effective. The Learning Community Program for transfer students in Literature 101 and Biology 105 was similarly disappointing. A possible combination of lack of interest, scheduling difficulties, lack of awareness of the potential academic benefits of participation, etc. contributed to the low level of transfer student participation. Table 18 WRITE Program Utilization Comparing Academic Year 2008-09 Quarter Student Contact Count Hours Fall 25 59 Winter 32 144 Spring 25 66 Table 19 STARS Learning Community Program Utilization Fall 2008 & Winter 2009 Fall, 2008 Winter 2009 Number of Total Contact Number of Class Students Hours Students Lit 101 8 40 Bio 105 7 15 23* *10 students participating were STARS students and 13 were not.

Total Contact Hours 78

In general, Learning Support Services needs to develop more effective strategies through which to recruit and provide academic support to transfer and re-entry students. Although these students tend to do well at UCSC, research indicates that they find their transition difficult during

24

the first few quarters as they experience the academic challenges of university-level work and, in most cases, adjust from college semesters to college quarters. Learning Support Services is determined to become a more productive and useful academic support option for these students, but we need to understand the group more thoroughly and match our services to their wants and needs more effectively. Learning Support Services Partnerships with the Colleges Year after year, Learning Support Services and the Colleges discuss strategies to work together to offer academic support to students who past experience illustrates are likely to struggle and incur academic difficulty. Our mutual goal is to assist students who have been designated by the Colleges as likely to demonstrate or having demonstrated a lack of academic success. During 2008-09 we continued to fund a rather disappointing partnership between Oakes, College VIII, Crown, Merrill, ACE and Learning Support Services and began a very promising program with Merrill, College VIII, and Oakes Colleges. We also continued to fund a small Writing Center at Kresge College that did not thrive. In the partnership between ACE, Learning Support Services, Crown/Merrill, and Oakes/VIII, Learning Support Services funded math drop-in tutoring at the Colleges in the winter quarter. As shown in Table 20, the utilization of the program was abysmal. Table 21 also illustrates that the drop-in writing tutoring offered at Kresge College saw similar utilization issues as did the other drop-in writing programs. Learning Support Services will not continue either the math or writing drop-in hours at the colleges as we offer tutoring and MSI for all of the courses for which tutoring at the Colleges was provided. Table 20 College Program Utilization Academic Year 2008-09 Program Student Quarter Count Math Drop-In Winter 33

97

Kresge Writing Drop-In Fall Winter Spring

14 17 22

15 11 16

Contact Hours

The problem that Learning Support Services and the Colleges have always experienced is that Learning Support Services can never find a time and/or location at a College that attracts a sufficient number of students to create an educationally viable learning community and a costeffective academic support model. However, during winter planning meetings and a spring pilot run of a new program named Reach Excellent Academic Performance (REAP), representatives from Merrill, College VIII, Oakes, EOP, and Learning Support Services designed a support program for students experiencing academic difficulty that combines the knowledge, experience,

25

and monitoring of the College advisors and the academic support of the Learning Support Services MSI and tutoring programs to offer students in academic difficulty preferred treatment and individual attention by their Colleges and Learning Support Services if they agree to participate in REAP. A REAP participant has a minimum of two appointments each quarter with his/her College advisor, completes a time management workshop and produces a time management plan, must attend MSI and/or receive tutoring for most, if not all, of his/her courses, is given additional hours of tutoring beyond one to two hours per week, and may have individual tutoring if that is recommended by his/her advisor. In addition, when attending MSI, the student receives special review sessions of one hour before each exam (only available to REAP students), completes a mid-quarter academic self-evaluation reviewed by his/her advisor, and is noted as a REAP student during end-of-quarter student academic standing meetings. In spring, 30 students participated in the first quarter of the REAP program. Tables 21 and 22 review the students’ participation in Learning Support Services-sponsored programs and their academic standing as of the beginning of fall quarter 2009. Two interesting patterns seem to emerge. Students sought academic support in math and science classes, as well as economics and psychology courses. This is in keeping with UCSC academic achievement trends, wherein students find math and science courses challenging. In addition, two of the most popular majors on campus at this time are Psychology and Economics. In general, the trend was for students participating in REAP to improve their academic standing, though in the Disqualification Pending category, only 47% of the students moved in the positive direction. Another category of interest is GM or “Good Marks.” We can only assume that students in this category were enrolled in REAP because they had been in academic difficulty previously, or were sliding in that direction based on their most recent quarterly GPA. Table 21 REAP Contact Hours by Learning Support Services Program Spring 2009 163 MSI Hours Tutor Hours 142 REAP Program Course by Course Utilization Data Spring 2009 Student Contact Course Count Hours AMS 005 1 11.75 AMS 011B 1 9 BIOL 020A 1 12 BIOL 080A 5 14.5 BIOL 089 1 5.25 BIOL 100 2 7 CHEM 001B 1 22.25 CHEM 001C 1 2 CMPE 080N 2 14 CMPS 012A 1 12.75 ECON 002 2 10.5

26

Table 21 continued Course ECON 011B ECON 113 MATH 002 MATH 003 MATH 011A MATH 011B MATH 019B MATH 023B PHYS 005C PSYC 001 PSYC 002 SOCY 001 WRIT 002 WRIT TUTOR

Student Count 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 6 1

Contact Hours 5 14.25 32.5 31.75 9.5 16.75 1 4 23.75 16.5 1.25 4 22.75 1

Table 22 REAP Program, Change in Academic Standing from Spring 2009 to Fall 2009 Academic Total Fall Fall Standing for 2009 2009 AP Quarter Year Spring GM % (N) 2009 % (N) N Good Marks 70% (GM) 10 (7) Spring 2009 Academic Probation 66% (AP) 3 (2) Spring 2009 Disqualification Pending (DP) 17 Spring 2009 Total for Fall 2009 30

Fall 2009 DP % (N)

Fall 2009 Grad % (N)

Fall 2009 Enroll Barred % (N)

Fall 2009 Leave of Absence % (N)

30% (3)

33% (1)

35% (6)

6% (1)

29% (5)

6% (1)

18% (3)

6% (1)

50% (15)

3% (1)

26% (8)

3% (1)

13% (4)

3% (1)

Fifty percent of the REAP participants began the fall quarter of 2009 in good standing, one student graduated, one student took a leave of absence, and one student is on Academic Probation, an initial demarcation of difficulty. Although these results are not ideal, the REAP program seems to have potential as an academic support delivery model that combines the expertise of College advisors and LSS. 27

Drop-In Math Tutoring After receiving notification from the Mathematics Department that their budget no longer allows them to sponsor the very successful and historically popular Math Drop-in Tutoring Program, Learning Support Services offered to fund this service for students. We assumed responsibility for the Math Drop-in Tutoring Program at the beginning of spring 2009. The Math Department graciously offered us the space that had traditionally been used in the Baskin Engineering Building, and we retained the structure of the program that Math had established: four evenings a week of drop-in tutoring covering math courses from Math 2 through Math 111. Table 23 presents student utilization of the drop-in Math tutoring. Table 23 Math Drop-in Course by Course Utilization Data Spring 2009 Student Course Count AMS 010 1 AMS 011A 1 AMS 011B 2 CMPE 016 1 EE 103 1 MATH 002 3 MATH 003 25 MATH 011A 26 MATH 011B 34 MATH 019A 9 MATH 019B 15 MATH 021 4 MATH 022 26 MATH 023A 9 MATH 023B 13 MATH 024 1 MATH 105A 1 MATH 111A 2 During spring quarter, 174 students from 19 different Math classes received drop-in Math tutoring. As has been the case for many years, students found the drop-in tutoring to be helpful. Learning Support Services is pleased to be able to commit continuing support to this very popular and academically important tutorial program for students enrolled in Math classes. Partnerships Offering Intensive Writing Support Many UCSC students enrolled in upper-division, major-specific classes find that their lack of confidence and competence when writing academic prose hamper their educational achievement. Instructors are also aware of their students’ writing inadequacies and search for ways to offer 28

writing support for students in classes that are often large. Learning Support Services has developed successful partnerships with several academic departments and individual instructors in order to provide peer-guided writing groups for students. During the 2008-09 academic year we continued our successful partnership with LALS, began a partnership with Anthropology, and revived a partnership with Literature. Students and instructors in all three departments found the partnerships to be useful and to contribute to students’ writing improvement. Learning Support Services Support for LALS 100A and 100B Several years ago, Professor Jonathan Fox, Writing Lecturer Dan Scripture, and Learning Support Services Director Holly Cordova investigated the relationship between students’ academic backgrounds and their demonstrated writing ability in two Latin American and Latino Studies classes, LALS 100A and LALS 100B. We discovered that students who came to UCSC from low-performing schools, having spoken a language other than English as their native language, and having not satisfied the ELWR requirement prior to entering UCSC were much more likely to earn the lower grades given in the class. The excellent grades were most often awarded to students from backgrounds of academic privilege. Therefore, we agreed to plan and implement a writing intensive support program integrated into these classes and to encourage students likely to be most at-risk of experiencing writing difficulties to participate in this support program. The academic support model that we used involves attaching a co-requisite, 2-unit, writing intensive course to LALS 100A and 100B. Students who choose to enroll in this course are required to meet with an undergraduate Learning/Writing Assistant for one hour each week and to produce drafts and rewrites of their course-assigned papers. In LALS 100A, the requirements of the 2-unit course, LALS 199, were extensive. For each of the three major writing assignments in the 100A class, 199 students were required to produce a complete rough draft to be submitted to their Learning/Writing Assistant, a revision of the draft to be turned in to their Teaching Assistant for evaluation and grading, and a rewritten version of this graded final draft to be submitted to their Learning/Writing Assistant. Thus, students in LALS 100A/LALS 199 submitted nine complete essays for evaluation. As the LALS 100A class focuses on the conventions of analytic research writing in the discipline and since the students produced nine complete essays involving drafts and revisions, the Committee on Education Policy (CEP) agreed to award these students “W” credit for the combined LALS 100A/199 class (7-units) using the student-initiated petition process. The same general principles were used in developing the LALS 100B/199 model. Students enrolled in LALS 199 received two units, met in groups with a Learning/Writing Assistant once per week, and submitted complete drafts of their papers to their Learning/Writing Assistants that were then revised and submitted to their Teaching Assistants for evaluation and grades. However, this class did not meet the criteria for a potential Writing Intensive class, and students were not considered to be eligible for “W” credit. In winter 2009, 44 of the 90 students enrolled in LALS 100A chose to enroll in the co-requisite writing component, LALS 199. Table 24 contains overview data comparing the course grades of students who chose to enroll in LALS 199 and those who did not seek this intensive writing

29

assistance. As we actively recruited students whose experiences in their UCSC Writing classes and other classes asking for writing had indicated to them that they still needed to improve their academic writing skills, we hope and assume that many of the 44 students chose to enroll in Writing 199 because they felt less confident and competent as writers. Table 24 Grade Distribution of LALS 100A Students who Did Participate and Did Not Participate in LALS 199 Winter 2009 LALS 199 Non-199 100A Students Students Grade N=44 N=46 A+ 2% 4% A 11% 15% A36% 22% B+ 32% 24% B 14% 17% B2% 2% C+ 0% 0% C 0% 7% D 0% 2% F 2% 4% P 0% 2% If our supposition that students who most needed writing assistance chose to enroll in LALS 199 and LALS 100A concurrently, then the writing intensive support produced positive results. Ninety-eight percent of the 199 students received LALS 100A grades in the A and B ranges as compared to 84% of the students who did not enroll in 199. Forty-nine of the LALS 199 students received a grade in the A range as compared to 41% of their non-LALS 199 enrolled peers. Forty-two of the students in LALS 199 completed evaluation forms. According to their self-reported data, 50% of them were EOP students, and 81% came from families who spoke a language other than English, both historic characteristics that have marked UCSC students as at higher risk of not achieving academic excellence. The LALS staff needs to compare the characteristics of the students who did enroll in LALS 199 concurrently with LALS 100A for the two years of this project, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and compare these student characteristics with the initial study of the student achievement problem done some years ago to begin to further validate our optimistic sense that the writing intensive support for LALS 100A is reducing the effects of students’ previous education on their academic performance in LALS 100A. The data for LALS 100B is also encouraging. However, the writing support for 100B is less intense. Students do attend weekly sessions and share paper drafts with their Learning/Writing Assistants. However, they do not revise final drafts. The focus of the writing assistance is on assisting students to demonstrate greater understanding of the course material and improved academic writing. However, the entire writing component of the class does not meet the criteria for “W” credit, so students will not receive “W” credit from CEP using the student-initiated petition process.

30

Only 29 of the 110 students enrolled in LALS 100B in spring 2009 opted to enroll in LALS 199 concurrently. Ninety-two percent of these students received course grades in the A and B ranges as compared with 88% of their classmates who did not seek writing assistance. Table 25 summarizes course grade data comparing LALS 100B students who did and did not enroll in LALS 199. Table 25 Grade Distribution of LALS 100B Students who Did Participate and Did Not Participate in LALS 199 Spring 2009 LALS 199 Non-199 100B Students Students Grade N=29 N=81 A 31% 23% A17% 23% B+ 24% 20% B 10% 16% B10% 6% C+ 3% 2% C 0% 5% P 3% 2% W 0% 1% Note: These numbers do not add up to 100% because the values were rounded. As with LALS 100A, the students who enrolled in LALS 199 concurrently with LALS 100B earned a higher number of grades in the A and B ranges. As with LALS 100A, students’ self-reported data (from 28 of the 29 enrollees) indicates that 71% of the 199 students are EOP students and 86% come from families who speak a language other than English. In all cases this other language is Spanish. The student evaluation data for LALS 199 attached to LALS 100A and LALS 100B is very positive. Most students claimed to have enrolled in the classes because they needed more assistance with their writing. Of course, fulfilling the “W” requirement was attractive to LALS 100A students. The Learning/Writing Assistants were deemed competent, prepared, caring, and helpful. Peer group editing of papers using rubrics reflective of the instructor’s expectations for each assignment were deemed useful. The only unmet need/desire that students mentioned was their wish for more one-on-one time with their Learning/Writing assistants; an educationally appropriate but fiscally unmanageable request. Overall, it appears that this model of additional formal writing assistance attached to courses as a co-requisite 2-unit course is attracting and assisting EOP and bilingual students, students who university data continually indicates are at risk of experiencing academic challenges that decrease their ability to achieve academic excellence and often result in interrupted retention or terminal attrition.

31

Intensive Writing Support for Anthropology Classes During the 2008-09 academic year, Learning Support Services formed a new partnership with the Anthropology Department to provide course-specific writing assistance for their students. The program began in winter and continued in spring. Learning Support Services supported Anthropology 194 in both winter and spring and Anthropology 152 in winter. Participation in the writing support program was required as part of the course. Each instructor designed a slightly different writing support model, but each used a combination of peer writing groups led by a Writing Assistant and individual tutoring offered on a scheduled appointment or drop-in basis. As this intensive writing support using a good deal of individual tutoring is costly, the Anthropology professors felt that the Writing Assistants need not attend the class sessions. Students’ evaluation of the Anthropology-based writing assistance was positive. On a scale of 1-4, where 1 is “disagree” and 4 is “agree,” students rated how helpful they found different writing group activities. In the three classes, the students indicated that the most helpful activities were those related to understanding assignments and planning and revising their papers. When the students were asked what aspect of the writing groups had been the most helpful, they listed many positive benefits to working with their peers and a writing tutor: “Hearing other people's experiences/approaches/strategies to writing; good ideas are shared and fears/challenges commiserated.” “Being able to get feedback on my work so far. Also, being able to see where other people are at on their research.” “Brainstorming concepts for papers in the class. It was helpful to hear how the rest of the writing group interpreted readings and lectures.” “Clarifying class concepts and vocabulary. Peer reviewing.” “Having people who know the topic read my drafts to help me make my papers stronger.” It can be noted here that Learning Support Services also continued to offer writing support to Literature 101 (as detailed in Table 7). The writing groups were well attended and the program was positively evaluated as has been the case for many years. As with the Anthropology program, the professor included participation in writing groups as a part of his course syllabus, although not all students were required to attend. Attendance was based on demonstrated writing competence on class-assigned essays. In general, intensive writing support is expensive, but it seems to contribute positively to students' competence as academic writers. Yet, students do not seem to take the initiative to make use of writing assistants unless nudged to do so by a structure, be it a requirement on a course syllabus (as the Anthropology and Literature examples show) or a co-requisite course (as the LALS 100A/B example shows). As educators, then, EOP, bilingual, and other categories of

32

less academically successful students need us to provide structures that allow them to engage in non-stigmatized academic assistance that they seem to admit is beneficial, but that they will not initiate outside of the sanctioned academic course structures. Intensive Support for Biology Classes Learning Support Services remains very anxious to develop and implement intensive support programs for classes in Biology, as the many Biology-based majors are some of the most popular majors on campus. Learning Support Services offers MSI for any Biology course that requests this service and Learning Support Services actively recruits tutors to assist students in all Biology classes with special emphasis on the specialized classes at the upper-division level. Yet, this support is not enough. We look for opportunities to work closely with individual instructors to better integrate Learning Support Services into class curriculum and instructors’ expectations. In the spring of 2009, John Tamkun and Learning Support Services worked through a coursespecific support model to assist students in Biology 20A. Professor Tamkun was particularly concerned with the multiple learning/thinking skills required for success in the class, two examples of which are the need to memorize the meaning of many terms, and the need to see relationships among concepts. To this end, Professor Tamkun developed weekly quizzes reflective of the mid-term and final examinations that he gave. Learning Support Services offered eight MSI-style weekly sessions focusing on the course content and working through the conceptual and study strategies needed to answer the weekly quiz questions. During the first week of class, students completed a self-evaluation designed to assist them to assess their readiness for Biology 20A. They were asked to consider their performance in Chemistry, since data that professor Tamkun had gathered indicate that students, in general, tend to receive one grade lower in Biology 20A than they did in Chemistry 1B. Other questions asked students about their academic performance in high school Biology and Biology 3 if they took the class. One hundred and thirty-seven students expressed an interest in participating in the weekly Learning Support Sessions. Ninety-five students (28% of the class) actually attended the weekly sessions. The average number of sessions that students attended was 4.3, thereby attending approximately four weeks of the quarter. The students who participated in these sessions had a 92% class pass rate as compared with 84% for the students who did not choose to attend. In the winter of 2009, Learning Support Services worked with Professor Don Potts to develop a model of intense support for Biology 20C. Because the content of this class is theoretical and conceptual, Professor Potts felt that students needed to be encouraged to participate in small critical reading/thinking discussion groups to increase their understanding and ability to analyze idea relationships. During the first week of class, students were given a self-analysis questionnaire to assist them to decide whether to commit to join one of these intense discussion groups. Sixty-five students expressed an initial desire to participate in this program. Fifty-three students actually attended discussion sessions. On average, attendance for students was 4.3 times, approximately once each week during four weeks of the quarter. The students who

33

participated in this program passed Biology 20C at a rate of 92%, and those who did not attend passed at a rate of 87%. When completing an end-of-quarter survey designed to determine why students did and did not choose to participate in the Biology 20C discussion sessions, students claimed that time conflicts and their lack of the need of help determined their decision not to participate. Fifty-seven percent of the students who did not participate in the Biology 20C support program rated themselves as “very good/excellent” students overall, and 47% gave themselves a “very good/excellent” rating in Biology 20C. In contrast, forty-two percent of the students who participated in the optional small group discussion sections gave themselves an overall academic rating of “very good/excellent,” and 45% rated themselves “very good/excellent” in Biology 20C. Although the students who participated in the support program for Biology 20C rated themselves less academically proficient, they passed the class at a higher rate. Their apparently lower academic self-efficacy in this case resulted in their choice to attend the Learning Support Services support program that contributed to their achieving academic success at a higher rate than their more confident peers. Although these two programs represent a start regarding intensive educational support for Biology classes, Learning Support Services and the Biology Department need to tighten our working partnership to improve and increase the scope and effectiveness of academic support options for Biology students. Partnership Offering Intensive Mathematics Support Based on a program that we began in 2003 developed through research done in partnership with the Math Department through a grant from the Committee on Teaching, Learning Support Services continued to offer extensive support to Math 2 and 3 students during 2008-09. The underlying premise guiding the structure of the Learning Support Services support for Math 2 and 3 is that students who enter the classes with Math Placement Exam scores below the midpoint in the placement range for the class, lower than B grades in previous UCSC Math classes, math anxiety, and/or lower than top performance in high school Math classes and SAT tests need to be enrolled in small (12 students), twice a week course sections that Learning Support Services sponsors. Since the program began, each year Learning Support Services and the Math Department have collaborated to improve the program. During 2008-09 we implemented several changes. These changes included Math 2 being offered all three quarters for the first time, with Learning Support Services continuing its support of small, once and twice per week sections for this expansion. The Math Department also placed several students who were interested in teaching at the Math 2 level into Math 188 to lead sections, and these undergraduate student section leaders participated in the Learning Support Services training program. Math 3 students were able to enroll in a 2unit course, Math 99F, that was offered concurrently with Math 3 to assist students to deepen their algebra skills. During spring 2009, Learning Support Services broadened its placement process for twice a week sections in Math 3 to individually place students, taking into consideration their Math Placement Exam score, their Math 2 grade, and the number of times the students had attempted Math 3.

34

Math 2 During fall 2008, Math 2 students were placed in once or twice a week sections based on their score on a pretest given the first day of class, which is the traditional placement procedure. Once a week sections met for 1.75 hours and were run by either a Learning Support Services undergraduate learning assistant in groups of 12-15 students or by a Math graduate student TA in groups of no more than 25 students. Twice a week sections of 12 to 15 students met for 1.75 hours each session and were led by a Learning Support Services undergraduate learning assistant. All Learning Support Services undergraduate learning assistants participated in a quarter-long training class and in weekly team meetings. Table 26 indicates that students in once a week sections passed Math 2 at higher rates than students in twice a week sections. We had, of course, hoped for a more educationally uplifting outcome wherein the twice per week sections assisted the less initially prepared students to pass Math 2 at the same rate as their more prepared peers. But, this trend of lower pass rates for students n twice per week sections was also seen in fall 2007. However, it should be noted that the Math 2 instructor chose the pretest which is used to place students in once or twice a week sections because he felt it was a better indicator of the students’ algebra skills that were relevant to Math 2 than the Math Placement Exam (MPE). As a result, students initially placed in the twice a week sections are expected to pass Math 2 at lower rates than students placed in the once a week sections. The overall class pass rate in fall 2008 was 87%, which was the highest pass rate since fall 2004, when the current placement process and section program started. The high pass rate may have been due to the support provided by the small, twice a week sections. Table 26 Pass Rate Data for Math 2 Students by Section & MSI Utilization Fall 2008 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Once a week Learning 35 100% Support Services section and MSI Once a week Learning 82 90% Support Services section only Twice a week Learning 24 79% Support Services section and MSI Twice a week Learning 29 72% Support Services section and MSI Once a week Grad TA 15 87% section and MSI Once a week Grad TA 40 83% section only Whole class

225

87%

35

During winter 2009, all students were required to attend twice a week sections. Winter sections were run by both Learning Support Services undergraduate learning assistants and Math 188 undergraduate section leaders. As seen in Table 27, the class pass rate in winter 2009 was much lower than in fall 2008; it was the lowest pass rate since fall 2004. Table 27 Pass Rate Data for Math 2 Students by Section & MSI Utilization for Winter 2009 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Twice a week section and 77 74% MSI Twice a week Learning 78 72% Support Services section only Whole class

155

74%

It is hard to know what contributed to this decline in pass rates. Nothing appears obviously different in winter 2009 than in previous years, including the average of student Math Placement Exam (MPE) scores or the percentage of students retaking Math 2. The Math 2 instructor also did not observe any striking difference between the class in winter 2009 and previous classes. However, there were a few differences in terms of section leader training and selection. All Math 2 section leaders participated in the Learning Support Services quarterly training, but there was unusually low attendance during the weekly winter quarter meetings. In addition, the selection process that the Math Department used to pick the winter Math 188 section leaders was not as rigorous as the Learning Support Services selection process. To address these issues, both Learning Support Services and the Math Department will use the same selection process, and weekly meeting times will be scheduled in advance to avoid unpopular and inconvenient times to increase attendance. In 2009, Math 2 was offered for the first time in the spring quarter since the Learning Support Services and Math Department partnership began. The pretest was utilized to place students in sections. As seen in Table 28, the students taking Math 2 in fall 2008 and spring 2009 had different characteristics. In the spring, 42% of the 87 students utilized the twice a week sections while in the fall only 24% of the 225 utilized the twice a week sections. In addition, while the percentage of students that were taking Math 2 for a second time was only 4% in the fall, in spring 2009 it was 25%. The high number of students retaking Math 2 in spring 2009 was a concern because there has historically been a difference in pass rates for those students who are retaking Math 2 than for those who are taking the class for the first time. Data collected for Math 2 courses since fall of 2004 found that students taking Math 2 for the first time generally have a pass rate of 83% while those taking it for a second time have a pass rate of 73%.

36

Table 28 Pass Rate Data for Math 2 Students by Section & MSI Utilization Spring 2009 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Once a week Learning 15 93% Support Services section and MSI Once a week Learning 37 84% Support Services section only Twice a week Learning 24 67% Support Services section and MSI Twice a week Learning 13 54% Support Services section and MSI Whole class

89

76%

It is interesting that students in the once a week sections tended to pass at a higher rate than students in twice a week sections, continuing the trend seen in the past two fall quarters. However, in spring 2009, the pass rate of students in twice a week sections fell below 70%, indicating that these students need a different type of academic support structure if they are to pass Math 2. Currently, students in Math 2 have access to additional resources, such as MSI and small group tutoring. MSI groups are voluntary and students generally work in small groups that focus on homework and test preparation. As seen in Tables 27 to 29, all students who participated in MSI passed Math 2 at higher rates than those who did not participate in MSI and were in similar (either once or twice a week) sections. This MSI data supports our recommendation that students should be encouraged to start with MSI and additional tutoring services early in the quarter and to attend them regularly. Also, perhaps a large lecture class is not appropriate for students with very underdeveloped math skills. Alternative instructional options may need to be developed or students may need to be recommended to institutions such as the Community Colleges, where College Algebra is taught in small classes that are unlikely to exceed 30 students. Math 3 Traditionally, Math 3 has used a section placement model that encouraged students to attend once or twice a week sections based on their MPE score or Math 2 grade. If the student scored below a 25 on the MPE (the mid-point on the MPE course placement range for Math 3) or received lower than a B in Math 2, they were told that they should enroll in twice a week sections. It should be noted that these were only guidelines, and it was up to students to sign up for and attend the section that they most preferred. The twice a week sections were led by Learning Support Services undergraduate learning assistants and section size was generally 12-

37

15. Once a week sections were coordinated by the Math Department and were generally led by Math graduate student TA’s and sometimes by Math 188 undergraduate students. The once a week section size was generally closer to 25 students. In the fall, students also had the option to participate in ACE lead sections and in a 2-unit Math 99F course. (Math 99F will be described in more detail later in this report. It should also be noted that ACE does not report its data in a class by class breakdown. Thus, we are unable to make comparisons with ACE students regarding academic success in Math 3.) As seen in Table 29, students in Math 3 in fall 2008 who enrolled in twice a week sections passed at rates between 71% and 78%, versus those in once a week sections who passed at rates closer to 60%. Students who participated in MSI who attended twice a week sections passed at the highest rate, but students who attended MSI and once a week sections passed at a lower rate. Table 29 Pass Rate Data for Math 3 Students by Section & MSI Utilization Fall 2008 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Twice a week Learning 45 78% Support Services section and MSI Twice a week Learning 41 71% Support Services section only Once a week Math Dept. 14 57% section and MSI Once a week Math Dept. 402 61% section only Whole class* 577 64% *Includes students in special programs such as Math 99F or ACE, but those students are not reported in section breakdown.

As seen in Table 30, sections in winter 2009 had similar patterns; however, pass rates in general were higher than in the fall. Also, MSI participants in both once a week and twice a week sections passed at higher rates than students who did not participate in MSI but attended sessions the same number of times a week.

38

Table 30 Pass Rate Data for Math 3 Students by Section & MSI Utilization Winter 2009 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Twice a week Learning 15 87% Support Services section and MSI Twice a week Learning 52 79% Support Services section only Once a week Math Dept. 43 77% section and MSI Once a week Math Dept. 256 71% section only Whole class* 391 *Includes students in special programs such as Math 99F.

74%

In spring 2009, Learning Support Services and the Math Department took a direct approach to section placement and did not let students self enroll in sections. Instead, each student was given a letter with a recommendation as to what type of section he/she should enroll in. All students with an MPE score below 25 or a grade lower than a B in Math 2 were given letters that only allowed them to enroll in twice a week sections. Students could request to be placed in a once a week section; however, they had to get approval from the instructor. This approval was granted to any student who requested it. Students’ with scores above 25 or those who received a B or better in Math 2 were given letters for once a week section enrollment. If so inclined, they could request approval from the instructor to enroll in a twice a week section; again, all requests were approved. Also, a number of students enrolled in Math 3 in spring 2009 were retaking the class. These students were given a letter with both once a week section times and twice a week section times, as they were encouraged to think about what choices they had made for sections in the past and what choice they should make for spring quarter. These students were able to select a section configuration that seemed most appropriate for their learning needs. All students that were retaking Math 3 were given their preference of once or twice a week sections. Table 31 provides a break down of the number of students and section type selected for each of these categories.

39

Table 31 Recommendations for Sections for Math 3 Students Spring 2009 Once a week Student recommended to twice a week sections MPE below 25 24 Math 2 Grade Below B 8 Student recommended to once a week sections MPE 25 or higher Math 2 B Grade or above

72 56

Twice a week

33 18

11 13

Students retaking Math 3 57 34 * These numbers do not add to 335 students as some students placed into Math 3 with transfer classes from community college and thus do not fit any of these categories. MSI was also run a bit differently. The instructor of the course used the ALEKS computer program as homework, and, therefore, MSI sessions were held in the computer labs. Students had twice as many MSI times available to them than were available in previous quarters. As seen in Table 32, students in both once a week and twice a week sections that used MSI passed the class at similar rates: 82% for twice a week sections and 83% for once a week sections. However, students who only used twice a week sections passed at the lowest rate of the year at 67%. Over the years, Math 3 has seen wide fluctuation in pass rates and more work needs to be done to further study the trends of the Math 3 course. Table 32 Pass Rate Data for Math 3 Students by Section & MSI Utilization Spring 2009 Section & MSI Utilization Number of Students Pass Rate Twice a week Learning 56 82% Support Services section and MSI Twice a week Learning 55 67% Support Services section only Once a week Math Dept. 24 83% section and MSI Once a week Math Dept. 200 71% section only Whole class

335

73% 40

During the 2006-07 academic year, math instructors from pre-calculus and calculus courses indicated concern that students were not succeeding because of their lack of algebra skills. During the 2007-08 academic year, some of these instructors included an algebra exam that would count toward points for passing the course. Learning Support Services in partnership with these instructors offered algebra review sessions to assist students with this process. During spring 2008, a pilot project was initiated for fall 2008 that would offer additional support for those students who seemed most in need of additional algebra review. These students would be given the opportunity to take a 2-unit algebra skills based course, Math 99F, concurrently with Math 3. Part of the idea was that students taking Math 3, the 2-unit Math 99F course, and one other 5-unit course could maintain full-time student status and have more time to dedicate towards strengthening their overall math skills. During fall 2008, 26 students enrolled in Math 99F, and during winter 2009, 25 students enrolled in Math 99F. Math 99F used an on-line Math program developed by professors at UC Irvine that maps an individual student’s mathematical understanding through extensive testing. After the program’s initial assessment, it allows the student to work on concepts that that particular student should be ready to learn. The program, in general, uses a mastery learning approach that continually tests the student. It adds to the list of concepts that each student has mastered, but it also takes away from this list if the student no longer demonstrates relevant problem-solving ability on a specific topic. The list of topics for the Math 99F course was selected by one of the Math 3 instructors; the concepts that were selected focused on the algebraic underpinnings of Math 3 pre-calculus material. This instructor’s decisions caused the interactive software to create a pie chart of topics that students worked on in the on-line ALEKS system. In the fall, students also attended a small group tutoring session once a week, attended a general help computer lab, and maintained a weekly e-mail dialog with their tutor. During the winter, students were assigned to work with a specific tutor during a longer lab session than in the fall, and maintained a weekly email dialog with the tutor. The goal of the Math 99F project was to increase these students’ pass rates in Math 3. Math 99F students in once a week sections had a pass rate of 59% (total N= 32), and those with twice a week sections had a pass rate of 85% (total N=20). These Math 3 pass rates are a combination of fall and winter Math 99F students. This is similar to the general trend seen in Math 3 during both fall and winter where students in twice a week sections passed at higher rates than those in once a week sections. However, the 59% pass rate of students in once a week sections is fairly low. These pass rates can be compared to others in the class, yet it is difficult to know if these students passed at higher rates than expected as students who chose to use ALEKS and enroll in Math 99F indicated in student evaluations that the reason they chose this option was because they felt they needed to improve their algebra skills. Extensive student evaluation data of the ALEKS program and its relationship to success in Math 3 was collected both in a student focus group in the fall and in written evaluations from both fall and winter quarters. According to the written evaluation data, 74% of the students thought that enrolling in Math 99F and using the ALEKS program assisted them in improving their overall course performance in Math 3. As stated above, the most common reason students gave for taking Math 99F was to improve their math skills, although many students also gave reasons such as “I needed two extra units,” “I have not done math in six years,” or “I am terrible at Math.” The last comment is important because many of the students made comments along

41

these lines. It seems that students with low self efficacy for math, as indicated by this type of comment, may struggle more because they see math problems in general as a threat rather than a challenge. Interestingly, 86% of the students felt that Math 99F increased their self confidence in Math 3 as seen in Table 33. Table 33 Evaluation Data from a Specific Question for Math 99F Students Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 What effect, if any, do you feel participating in Math 99 had on your academic performance in Math 3? (Total responses) Yes Increased understanding of course concepts………….(35) 89% Increased self confidence……………………………..(35) 86% Improved overall course performance………………..(35) 74% Improved test scores………………………………….(34) 65% Improved homework scores…………………………..(35) 57% Improved quiz scores…………………………………(35) 51% Increased interest in Math 3…………………………..(35) 35% Overall, 91% of the 35 students who filled out evaluations said they would recommend Math 99F to a friend. Although evaluation data was very positive, actual Math 3 performance for these students continued to follow once a week and twice a week section trends. Students in the focus group and in the written evaluation also gave feedback that the amount of work that was required for this program and for Math 3 was often overwhelming. Thus, due to the high cost and questionable educational effectiveness of Math 99F, Learning Support Services decided to instead spend that money to increase the number of twice a week sections for Math 3 in the spring rather than offering Math 99F. It is true that since the Math Department and Learning Support Services formed our partnership in 2003 and began to offer students small, twice a week sections as well as MSI and tutoring beginning in 2004, the pass rate in Math 2 is generally above 80%, whereas previously it had been between 65% and 70%. However, the Math 3 pass rate remains inconsistent, usually around the mid-seventy percent range. Therefore, Learning Support Services is engaged in a comprehensive longitudinal study of Math 2 and Math 3 that will be available in mid-fall of 2009. The data analysis for this study thus far is raising disturbing trends and highlighting substantial educational problems. As Math 3 (or demonstration of equivalent math skills) is the gatekeeper to all of the majors in the School of Engineering and the Physical and Biological Sciences Divisions as well as several of the majors in the Social Science Division including popular programs such as Economics, Environmental Studies, and Psychology, it behooves Division Deans, Department Chairpersons, individual faculty, and Learning Support Services staff to develop improved educational strategies for assisting the many UCSC eligible students who come to us unable to succeed in pre-calculus. Furthermore, it appears that students who do

42

not pass Math 2 with an A or a B are very unlikely to pass Math 3. Learning Support Services is currently exploring the following questions: Does Math 2 prepare students for Math 3? Does Math 3 prepare students for calculus? And, if these preparatory courses are not achieving their educational goals, what can and should the members of the Mathematics Department, the Divisions of Engineering, Physical and Biological Sciences, Social Sciences, and Learning Support Services do to create an educationally effective sequence of preparatory Mathematics courses? Discussion of Educational Equity Data During the 2006-07 academic year, Holly Gristch de Cordova, Director of Learning Support Services, and Charis Herzon, Assistant Director of Learning Support Services, presented a paper discussing issues of a phenomenon currently referred to as “Educational Equity” or “Inclusion in Excellence.” In summary, the paper highlighted academic achievement data for the cohort that entered UCSC as first year college students during the fall of 2005. The data clearly indicated that students from economically advantaged backgrounds consistently earned the highest grade point averages, accounting for the largest proportion of GPA’s above 3.0, whereas students from low income backgrounds, students of color, and students from low-performing high schools were likely to earn GPAs in the “C” range. This data concerns us for multiple reasons. Since UCSC is actively recruiting students so as to attract a diverse student population, is it fair that students from low-income backgrounds, often students of color, do not have equal access to academic excellence? What responsibility do we as a campus have to mitigate the negative effects of lowperforming high schools and quickly and effectively enable UC eligible students to develop their academic potential, thus making them academically competitive with their previously educationally privileged peers? Learning Support Services continues to be interested in studying the academic experiences of students from diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, and variously educationally prepared groups. Our focus in these investigations is to continue to follow the progress of the students who entered as frosh in fall of 2005 to continue to explore the degree to which UCSC provides an environment of educational equity. The academic progress of this 2005 cohort up through the fall quarter of their fourth year, fall 2008, will be presented in this section of this report. Next spring, we will present an in-depth study of these students focused on those who graduated in four years in contrast with those who left UCSC without a degree and those who are still pursuing UCSC degrees. Although we can offer information regarding the academic achievement trends of the cohort of students who entered UCSC in fall 2005, we cannot report correlation data focused on their utilization of Learning Support Services as part of our analysis of students’ academic performance and issues of educational equity. However, Learning Support Services now possesses an excellent data management system. Therefore, we are beginning a comprehensive longitudinal study of the relationship of participation in Learning Support Services to students’ educational achievement and its possible influence on educational equity focused on the year-byyear progress of the cohort of students who entered UCSC in fall 2008. A review of academic achievement data for the cohort of students entering UCSC as frosh in 2005, collected as of the end of fall quarter 2008, indicates that the retention rate was 74% for non-EOP students and 75% for EOP students. Therefore, it seems plausible to conjecture that, in

43

order to increase its retention rates, UCSC should be equally committed to challenging students of privilege and supporting academically underprepared students so as to minimize student attrition. EOP students (low-income, first generation university students) on average continue to achieve less academic success than their more privileged peers, even as they begin their fourth year of progress toward graduation. They have not yet become indistinguishable from their initially more affluent peers who are usually from more educated families. The following discussion of academic achievement data indicates that UCSC does not seem to have mitigated EOP students’ initial educational disadvantages and equalized their educational opportunities. Figure 3 presents a comparison of the cumulative GPAs for the entering first-year class of 2005 as of fall 2008 for EOP versus non-EOP students. Figure 3 Comparison of EOP v. Non-EOP Cumulative GPA of Fall 2005 Frosh Cohort, Fall 2008 50.00%

45.00%

43.18%

40.00%

38.13%

35.00%

33.33%

30.00% 27.39% 25.00% 22.17%

EOP % N=417 Non-EOP % N=1818

20.00% 15.35% 15.00% 11.75% 10.00% 6.82% 5.00% 1.44%

0.44%

0.00% 2.99 by Division at Admission, EOP v. Non-EOP as of Fall 2008 80.00% 74.36% 70.90%

70.29% 70.00%

66.67%

60.00% 53.85%

53.13%

51.22% 50.00%

44.44%

46.15% EOP, N=285 Non-EOP, N=1,910

40.00%

29.41%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Arts

Engineering

Hum

PBSci

Soc Sci

EOP students who had initially expressed an interest in the Arts showed an academic decline in 2008. Yet, it is noteworthy that these students may not have actually declared a major in the Arts Division. EOP students initially expressing an interest in Engineering are performing at the same academic level as they did last year, but the gap between EOP and non-EOP students’ academic achievement at the highest level has widened. Both EOP and non-EOP students whose initial interest was in the Physical and Biological Sciences are doing better as of fall 2008 than in fall 2007. EOP students with initial interest in the humanities division are doing much better this year, with a larger increase than the non-EOP students who have also improved academically. In the Social Sciences, EOP and non-EOP students both gained academically, but the gap between the two groups favoring non-EOP students still remains disturbingly large. Since fall 2008 is the first quarter of the fourth year, looking at their current major is perhaps of more interest than looking at their initial major interest. Yet, there are some interesting patterns related to these two points of major selection, initial and declared, that will be discussed here. Figure 7 presents an overview of the declared majors for the entire cohort.

47

Figure 7 Fall 2005 Frosh Cohort by Division, Fall 2008*

5% 17%

21%

Division of Humanities Division of Social Sciences Division of the Arts Division Physical & Bio Sci School of Engineering

11%

46%

* Four students who declared independent majors and eight who had not declared a major due to having left UCSC for one or more quarters are not included in the divisional data. N=2,223 Forty-six percent of the students have declared majors in the Social Science division. This is more than twice as many majors as in the next most popular division, Physical and Biological Sciences. Twenty-one percent of the students have declared majors in the Physical and Biological Sciences Division, followed by 15% in the Humanities Division, 11% in the Arts Division, and 5% in the School of Engineering. In this student cohort as of fall 2008, there are 413 EOP students. In the Arts, Engineering, and Humanities Divisions, they are underrepresented as majors as is evident in Figure 8. However, in the Physical and Biological Sciences and Social Sciences Divisions they are overrepresented, with PBSCI having 24% EOP and 20% non-EOP student majors and Social Sciences having 51% EOP and 45% non-EOP student majors. As most EOP students attend low- to middleperforming high schools and are more likely to come to UCSC academically underprepared, this very high number of EOP students in the Social Science majors raises many questions regarding academic support services and university resource allocation. See Appendix 2 for a listing of the number of students in each major within each academic Division.

48

Figure 8 Distrubution of Fall 2005 Frosh Cohort by Division, EOP v. Non-EOP, Fall 2008

50.6% 50.0% 45.2%

40.0%

30.0% EOP, N=413 Non-EOP, N=1,810

23.7% 20.4% 20.0%

17.6% 13.1%

11.9% 10.0%

8.0% 4.6% 4.8%

0.0% Arts

Engineering

Hum

PBSci

Soc Sci

Figure 9 illustrates the percentage, grouped by division, of EOP and non-EOP students with a cumulative GPA above 2.99 who declared a major as of fall 2008. Based on the previous data, we already are aware that EOP and non-EOP students do not succeed at the same rates. It is interesting to observe the differences in academic achievement as measured by GPAs above 2.99 among the percentages of the EOP and non-EOP groups across the divisions. The largest discrepancies are in Art and Engineering, 29.3% and 22.9% respectively, followed by Social Sciences and Humanities at 20.7% and 19.6%. The division that, as of fall 2008, was most equitable was Physical and Biological Sciences; however, the difference between EOP and nonEOP students is still 12.4%.

49

Figure 9 Fall 2005 Frosh Cohort: Percentage of Students Whose Cumulative GPA>2.99 by Current Major Dividion as of Fall 2008, EOP v. Non-EOP 80.00% 71.76%

71.47%

70.00% 65.65% 59.77% 60.00%

57.30% 51.85%

50.00% 44.90%

44.98%

42.42% 40.00%

EOP, N=413 Non-EOP, N=1,810

36.84%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Arts

Engineering

Hum

PBSci

Soc Sci

Figure 10 presents a comparison of EOP and non-EOP students who did not change division for their major interests from their initial first quarter identification of a potential area of major interest to the declaration of a major. The percentages again represent the percent of students achieving a cumulative GPA above 2.99.

50

Figure 10 Fall 2005 Forsh Cohort: Percent of Students Whose Cumulative GPA>2.99 by Division as of Fall 2008 if Division at Admission Equals Current Division 90.00%

80.00%

78.57% 71.13%

70.00%

70.75%

66.67% 62.50%

60.00%

56.36% 53.92% 50.00%

51.76%

50.00% 44.44%

EOP, N=179 Non-EOP, N=747

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Arts

Engineering

Hum

PBSci

Soc Sci

Some interesting patterns emerged regarding students who did not change their minds from the initial indication of their major preference to their declared major. In general, students who formally declared and are pursuing a major in the same area as their initially-expressed major preference are doing better academically than students who were undeclared when coming to UCSC or who changed their interest before declaring a major. In the Physical and Biological Science division, the difference between EOP and non-EOP students who have pursued their intended major as their declared major and achieved GPAs above 2.99 is only 3.9% in favor of non-EOP students. This is much smaller than the 12.4% difference in favor of non-EOP students for the entire group now majoring in the PBSci division, as shown in Figure 9. In the Division of Social sciences, the difference between EOP and non-EOP students who initially declared and are still pursuing one of the Division’s many majors is 19%. This is a substantial difference in stark contrast with that in PBSci. Finally, the next two figures present data on the 2005 student cohort as of 2008 arranged by high school performance level and ethnicity.

51

Figure 11 Fall 2008 Cumulative GPA of Fall 2005 Frosh Cohort: API Index of Last High School 45.00%

42.72% 41.04%

40.47%

40.00%

35.00% 31.13% 30.00%

28.54% 27.95%

25.00% 22.62% 21.60% 20.00%

API 1, 2, 3, 4 (%) N=212 API 5,6,7 (%) N=551 API 8,9,10 (%) N=1030

16.04% 15.00% 10.38%

9.80%

10.00%

5.44% 5.00% 1.42% 0.68% 0.18% 0.00%