The Role and Impact of Supplemental Instruction in Accelerated Developmental Math Courses
Keywords:
education, developmental education, supplemental instruction, academic performance, mathematics coursesAbstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36896/1.1fa2
A difficult issue for tutoring programs is low participation, especially at commuter campuses. At the University of Houston-Downtown, this problem seems particularly acute for developmental education (DE) courses. This paper describes the Supplemental Instruction (SI) program at the University of Houston-Downtown (UHD) with focus on the role of the SI Leader in accelerated DE math courses. A study was conducted between Fall 2015 and Spring 2017 to evaluate differences in student performance in two courses between sections that were staffed with an SI Leader and those that had no assistance from the SI program. The study found statistically significant differences in grade performance between SI session participants and non-SI participants. The study also found that students passed at a higher rate in accelerated Intermediate Algebra as compared to traditional biweekly sections. Finally, students passed at a higher rate in accelerated sections that were staffed with an SI Leader compared to accelerated sections without an SI Leader.
References
Arendale, D. R. (1994). Understanding the supplemental instruction model. In D. C. Martin & D. R. Arendale (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Supplemental Instruction: Increasing achievement and retention (pp. 11-21). San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219946004
Hall, J. M., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 26-32.
Hodges, R., & White, W. G. (2001). Encouraging highrisk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 2-10.
Kahan, B. C., Rehal, S., & Cro, S. (2015). Risk of selection bias in randomized trials. Trials, 16, 405-412. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0920-x
Koch, B., Slate J. R., & Moore, G. (2012). Perceptions of students in developmental classes. Community College Enterprise, 18(2), 62-82.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Laskey, M. L., & Hetzel, C. J. (2011). Investigating factors related to retention of at-risk college students. Learning Assistance Review, 16(1), 31-43.
Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (1998). Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared (developmental) and regular admission college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 42-64. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0956
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College of Student Development, 45(5), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0061
Rutschow, E. Z., & Schneider, E. (2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving developmental education. New York, NY: MDRC.
Umbach, P.D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: the role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
University of Houston-Downtown. (2017). Fact book. Houston, Texas: Office of Institutional Research.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
