1. Accelerating the Path to Degree Completion
and Increasing Retention through STEM
Scholars Step-Up Bridge Program
AFACCT 22nd Annual Conference
January 5, 2012
Session 1.7
Supawan King, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Math
Chris Jones, Assistant Professor of Math
Harford Community College
2. Presentation Overview
STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge Program
Mathematics Curriculum
Tracking of Students
Student Feedback & Next Steps
Questions
2 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
3. STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge
Program
STEM Programs at HCC
STEM Scholar Step-Up Bridge program and
Curriculum Design
Selection of population
Anticipated Outcomes
3 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
4. HCC STEM Programs
HCC STEM Programs
Math, Biology, Chemistry, Engineering,
Environmental Science, Engineering Technology,
CADD, Biotechnology
Fall 2011 majors: Engineering: 181; Biology 141;
Engineering Technology: 61; Chemistry: 46
Strong STEM focus regionally and nationally
Concerns: looming workforce shortages in STEM
fields combined with declining student interest
and readiness for STEM fields
4 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
5. HCC STEM Vision/Goals
HCC STEM Vision/Goals
Meet regional needs for a prepared STEM
workforce by:
Increasing number of students pursuing STEM
degrees
Ensuring students are prepared to be successful
Supporting degree completion
5 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
6. STEM Bridge Program Design
STEM Bridge Program Design
First year design:
3 weeks, five days per week, 8 hour days
Fully integrated program
Developed career awareness and strengthened skills
in English, math, research, and academic skills
Daily, each morning: math and English; afternoons:
science, labs
Daily lunch conversations with scientists and
engineerings
6 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
7. Program Design
Program Design
Second year program design:
Two tracks, Engineering and Science
Enrolled higher numbers of engineering majors
Daily lunches with guest speakers very popular
Third year program design:
Increased focus on engineering; majority of
students enrolled were engineering majors
Four weeks, three days per week
Increased math content, integrated
English/research into science/engineering content
7 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
8. Selection of Population
Selection of Population
Mailed letters to homes; well publicized; worked
with advising; sent brochures to high schools
First year: targeted incoming STEM majors who
tested just at or below college level math
Second and third year: targeted all incoming
STEM majors, since focus included engineering
majors who need to be calculus ready in first
semester
8 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
9. Anticipated Outcomes
Anticipated Outcomes
Retain students in STEM majors through degree
completion by:
Shortening time to degree completion by advancing
placements in math
Connecting students to each other, to resources, to
the STEM community
Strengthening academic skills
Increasing knowledge of various STEM careers
9 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
10. Mathematics Curriculum
Mathematics Curriculum Development
Pre-Assessment
Daily Lectures & MyMathTest
Post-Assessment
Math Placement
Over-expectation of student’s math skill
Curriculum Redesign
Algebra Track
Function Track
10 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
11. Math Curriculum Redesign
Math 002
Intro to Algebra
Math 017
Intermediate
Algebra
Algebra Algebra Post-
Track Assessment
Math 101
College Algebra
Pre- Math 103
Assessment Trigonometry
Math 109
Pre-Calculus
Function Function Post-
Track Assessment
Math 203
Calculus I
11 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
13. Tracking of Students
Population: Bridge Students
Summer 2009: n = 20 (F=3, M=17, HS=1)
Summer 2010: n = 19 (F=6, M=14, HS=2)
Data collected from Fall 2009 to Spring 2011
Student Performance
Student Success: Retention, Completion, and
Transfer
Reduction in Time to Completion
13 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
15. Student Performance
GPA
(Spring 2011, n = 36, , College Average = 2.85)
3.5
2.99
3.0 2.90 2.88
2.71 2.71
2.64
2.5
2.0
Sci, Engr, & Math Technology Non STEM
Bridge Overall AFACCT, January 5, 2012
15
16. Student Success - Performance
Of 39 Bridge students STEM Bridge Students Overall
(2009-2010, n = 39)
15.8% initially success
66% success 14 13
11% fail, and 12
12
Initiallly Success
8% withdraw 10
Success
8
Fail
6 Withdraw from the
4 program
4 3
2 2 2
2 1
0
2009 2010
16 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
17. Student Success in Math -
Performance
80% of successful Bridge students passed subsequent
Math courses
Student Success overall by Degree Student Success in Math by Degree
(2009-2010, n = 36) (2009-2010, n = 31)
100%
2 Non STEM
90% 10%
80% 2 Technology
1 10%
70%
60%
22
50%
Fail
Sci, Engr, &
40% 2 Math
30% Success
80%
1
20%
10% 5 1 Initial
0% Success
Sci, Engr, & Technology Non STEM
Math
17 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
18. Success of Math Intervention
> 80% of Bridge students Student Success in Math Requirements
are successful in Math 100%
courses 90%
88.2%
85.7%
83.3%
80% 72.8% 72.7% 72.8%
94% of Bridge students 70%
with no change in their
60%
initial Math placement are
successful 50%
40%
80% of Bridge students 30%
placed one or two 20%
levels up in Math courses 10%
are successful 0%
2009 2010 Overall
Bridge Students STEM Students
18 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
19. Student Success after Bridge
Placement
Success in Math Courses after Bridge Placement
(n = 36)
100% 1
90% 3 1
80%
70%
60%
50% 16 Fail
40% 11 4 Success
30%
20%
10%
0%
No Change 1-level up 2-level up
19 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
20. Student Success after Bridge
Placement
No Change in Math Placement 1-Level up of Math Placement
(n = 17) (n = 14)
12
10 6
5 5 5 5
10 9
5
8 4
6 3
4 3 3 2
2 1 1
2 1 1
0 0
Trans 100 Level 200 Level Trans 100 Level 200 Level
2-Level up of Math Placement
(n = 5)
4
3
3
2
2 SM
1 SM&S
1
0
0
20 Trans 100 Level AFACCT, January 5, 2012
21. Student Success after Bridge
Placement
Transitional Level Initial Math 100 Level Initial Math Placement
Placement (n = 16) (n = 10)
6 6
5 5 5 5
5 5
4 4
3 3 3
3 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
0
0 0
No Change 1-level up 2-level up No Change 1-level up 2-level up
200 Level Initial Math Placement
(n = 11)
12
10
10 9
8
6 Math
4 Math & Overall
2 1 1
21 0 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
No Change 1-level up
22. Student Success after Bridge
Placement
Success in Math & Overall
(n=31)
100.0%
100%
90%
80.6%
80% 75.0%
70%
60%
50.0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No Change 1-level up 2-level up Overall
22 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
23. Student Success after Bridge
Placement (Summary)
Program Population 2009-2010
(n =36 + 3 withdrew)
with no change in
Success Overall (31) 92.3% 33.3%
Math Placement (12)
with 1-level up in Math
Success in Math (25) 69.4% 30.6%
Placement (11)
Success Overall & with 2-level up in
80.6% 5.6%
Math (25/31) Math Placement (2)
23 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
24. Bridge Student Status
Student Status as of Fall 2011
(n = 39)
Withdrew
No Record 8%
10%
Graduate
5%
Transfer
Current
18%
59%
24 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
25. Summary
The STEM Scholars Bridge program is successful in:
Closing gaps in content knowledge
Preparing students with college-ready skills
Reducing time to completion
25 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
27. Contact
STEM Division: STEM@harford.edu
Deborah Wrobel, Dean of STEM
(443) 412-2240 dwrobel@harford.edu
Supawan King, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Math
(443) 412-2601 sking@harford.edu
Chris Jones, Assistant Professor of Math
(443) 412-2055 cjones@harford.edu
27 AFACCT, January 5, 2012
Hinweis der Redaktion
No Change 12/16 = 75% 12/39 = 30.8%1-level up 11/11 = 100% 11/39 = 28.2%2-level up 2/4 = 50% 2/39 = 5.1% Overall 25/31 = 80.6% 25/39 = 64.1% Program Success Rate 36/39 = 92.3%Program Math Success Rate 31/39 = 79.5%Program Success Overall which success in Math 25/31 = 80.6%
No Change 12/16 = 75% 12/36 = 33.3%1-level up 11/11 = 100% 11/36 = 30.6%2-level up 2/4 = 50% 2/36= 5.6% Overall 25/31 = 80.6% 25/36 = 69.4%Program Success Rate 31/36 = 92.3%Program Math Success Rate 25/36 = 69.4%Program Success Overall which success in Math 25/31 = 80.6%