Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
The Science Advancement through Group Engagement Program: Leveling the Playing Field and Increasing Retention in Science Donna M. Hall,† Amanda J. Curtin-Soydan,† and Dorian A. Canelas*,†,‡ †
Academic Resource Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0694 United States Department of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0346 United States
‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: How can colleges and universities keep an open gateway to the science disciplines for the least experienced first-year science students while also maintaining high standards that challenge the students with the strongest possible high school backgrounds? The Science Advancement through Group Engagement (SAGE) project targets cohorts of less well-prepared, high potential science students as they progress together through the first two years of undergraduate science courses. A study in chemistry revealed that retention of the first cohort of SAGE participants through the gateway chemistry sequence more than doubled that of both historical and contemporary control groups. Moreover, by the fourth course, Organic Chemistry 2, SAGE participants performed as well as students who arrived at university with the strongest possible high school backgrounds. Because of national trends in high school student science preparation, the positive impact of this program disproportionately affected women and students belonging to underrepresented minority groups. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Curriculum, Testing/Assessment, Learning Theories, Student-Centered Learning, Chemical Education Research FEATURE: Chemical Education Research · The SAGE program will enable less well-prepared students to be competitive in the classroom with their more well-prepared peers as measured by test scores and course letter grades (hypothesis B). · The SAGE program will benefit students who need more directed learning opportunities by increasing their engagement with “best-fit” academic support resources (hypothesis C). · Students will subscribe to the SAGE program despite a possible perception of increased demand for their time and effort (hypothesis D). Herein, we report outcomes for the first cohort of student participants in a two-year program pilot in introductory, general, and organic chemistry, and we compare these outcomes to those of control groups.
A
lthough increasingly greater numbers of students enter college with the intention of pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and health professions, and despite a long history of intervention programs, attrition from gateway undergraduate courses remains high nationally.1−3 Since 1950, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent over $22 billion4 on research to determine why students leave and on programs to address the leaky pipeline.5−8 Critics have pointed to the “one size fits all” focus of education policy at the national level,9 suggesting that real improvement will occur when practices, derived from core scientific principles of learning, can be flexibly adapted to different learners and institutional learning contexts. The Science Advancement through Group Engagement (SAGE) project responds to this national dialogue on the need for improved retention and represents a significant advance in developing such an approach. SAGE is a multidimensional program targeting undergraduates who are relatively inexperienced in science and find themselves in the bottom quartile of their matriculating college class as determined by their math SAT scores and lack of advanced placement (AP) courses in math and science. Our hypotheses were: · Given appropriate educational programs, all admitted students can develop the capacities to persist and succeed in gateway science courses without reducing the academic rigor of the curriculum (hypothesis A). © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS SAGE has roots in social constructivism and borrows elements from a number of learner-centered pedagogies successfully implemented in other college settings, including peer-led team learning (PLTL),10−15 process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning (POGIL),16−20 student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP),21−24 supplemental instruction (SI),25,26 team-based learning (TBL),27 and
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400075n | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
combinations of these methods.28,29 The first stage of the SAGE project design incorporated six “critical components” identified by the developers of PLTL: 1. Study groups were closely integrated with the course. 2. The chemistry learning specialist who codeveloped the program either taught or coordinated with instructors in all chemistry courses supplemented by SAGE. 3. SAGE teaching assistants (TAs, undergraduate students who had previously taken chemistry courses) were trained in facilitating small-group collaborative-learning sessions. 4. Problems chosen for use in collaborative group learning sessions were appropriately challenging. 5. Study group sessions were conducted in rooms specially outfitted for small group learning. 6. SAGE had strong institutional and departmental support for innovative teaching methods, logistics, and program costs.11 Like PLTL, the SAGE model is grounded in cognitive theory. Lev Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development explicitly informs PLTL’s framework for designing instructional materials; this underpins the core PLTL requirement that study group problems are “appropriately challenging” for students’ levels of intellectual development.11 This requirement also implicitly points to cognitive load theory (CLT), a concept used in the SAGE model to explore the impact of factors on individuals’ learning at the local level of the specific intervention (e.g., level of difficulty of chemistry problems assigned) and those factors external to it imposed by the larger college environment (e.g., demands of student’s other course work, adjustment to college life and learning, etc.) In CLT, working memory is assumed to be limited in its capacity to hold and manipulate novel information.30 The role and limitations of working memory, in regard to specific cognitive tasks, inform the development and identification of instructional methods and learning theories introduced in the SAGE study groups. The impact of cognitive load is contingent upon predictable patterns of brain development, an individual’s prior life experiences, and the overall demands of the environment.31−33 The human brain is not fully developed until well into the 20s, and traditional college-age students are still developing the very cognitive capacity essential for success in collegenamely, the cognitive control involved in planning, logical thinking and reasoning, and emotional and motivational control.34,35 Thus, these undergraduates carry a broadly heavier cognitive load than adults, given the architecture of the adolescent brain. Highly compelling evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brain indicates the cognitive and metacognitive development displayed by students in their first year and impelled by the wholesale exposure to new and complex environmental demands produces regionally specific changes in brain structure.36 It follows that gifted students who enter selective colleges from high schools with less rigorous science curricula carry greater cognitive loads compared to their better-prepared peers. Therefore, within the framework of CLT, it is unsurprising that less well-prepared students have been less likely to graduate with degrees in the STEM disciplines. We should indeed expect that these less-experienced students will need more external feedback, time, and guided practice to develop the neurological structures underlying the higher-order cognitive functioning demanded by college-level math and
science courses at our most rigorous institutions31 while they are also learning to effectively self-regulate in the college environment. CLT, then, is not only applicable to a particular instance of problem solving, but must be considered in the broader context of the transition to college.
■
METHODOLOGY In the first two years of the SAGE project, our methodological approach focused on pedagogies aimed at improving students’ conceptual understandings and abilities to form large, cohesive pictures of the interdependency and importance of their foundational chemistry knowledge. We also focused on students’ transitions to college life and learning in the study groups. In addition, we developed methodologies for providing weekly TA training. The SAGE project was launched concurrently with a new chemistry curriculum and a new fellowship program, and the interdependencies of these programs will be discussed. The SAGE project was conceived, developed, and implemented by the university’s undergraduate learning center; the option to join was announced to all students by the instructor of the Introduction to Chemistry course during the first week of classes. This course was selected because most of the entering student body is adequately prepared and will have satisfactory outcomes in General Chemistry 1 without programs such as SAGE (an important feature in the current economic climate of limited resources.) This type of course enrollment selection method has been used by other researchers targeting “weaker student populations” such as the first-year interest group (FIG) program37 and a more recent transition program developed by Shields et al.15 Prior studies of optional preparatory programs in chemistry have confirmed that students who are more well-prepared are the most likely to participate in optional resources,38 so we specifically opened this program only to the student group shown to be less wellprepared. Indeed, in order to keep the cost per student ratio reasonable, the SAGE project targets only students who enter college academically less well-prepared as evidenced by their chemistry course placement; guidelines for placement can be found in the Supporting Information. SAGE participants attended a short orientation to discuss program goals and expectations, and then they typically met with undergraduate TAs in study groups of four to six group members for 1.5 h per week for 13 weeks each semester. (The chemistry curriculum, weekly TA training sessions, and study group session formats are described in the Supporting Information.) Students who completed the Introduction to Chemistry course were invited again to participate in SAGE study groups for General Chemistry 1 in the spring semester regardless of whether or not they participated in SAGE in the fall; during the subsequent academic year, these students were again invited to join the SAGE program for Organic Chemistry 1 and Organic Chemistry 2. (Course numbers, recommending sequence, and formal course titles have evolved over time; please see the Supporting Information.) This first cohort of SAGE study group students consisted of 41 students who participated in the program for at least one full semester. Most (70%) of the students who were in the SAGE group for Organic Chemistry 2 participated in SAGE study groups for four continuous semesters. The study group component of the SAGE project integrates and adapts evidence-based features of constructivist group learning models implemented in many other setB
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400075n | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
tings11,12,14−17,21,23−29,39,40 with a self-regulated learning (SRL) approach.41 SLR instruction encourages students to work through cycles of task analyses, planning, reflection, and selfadjustment as they develop the ability to assess the value and meaning of their efforts within the context of a scientific scholarly community.42,43 In addition, TAs in the SAGE program are essential for introducing learning strategies as well as corroborating and addressing the learning patterns and challenges of the SAGE program participants. Their input and the structured monitoring of student learning constitutes one of the hallmarks of the SAGE model and also facilitates assessment-based, timely outreach to those participants who might make greater advances using individualized academic support. The availability of targeted individualized support is particularly important because college students’ knowledge of strategies and awareness of their learning difficulties do not always automatically lead to adjustment of approaches to learning course material.44 Individualized support helps students focus on implementing and evaluating strategies for managing their motivation, the study environment, academic resources, time, tasks, and attention. Indeed, the SAGE project constitutes a fundamental change in the institutional geography that provides seamless transitions between coursework, study groups, and support services as needed.
ANOVA on ranks with Dunn’s posthoc tests (for nonparametric data) was used to assess multigroup differences; a p value of
