REFINING A LIVING AND LEARNING COMMUNITY FOR FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS: THE ASU PERSPECTIVE

Transcription

1 REFINING A LIVING AND LEARNING COMMUNITY FOR FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS: THE ASU PERSPECTIVE Mary R. Anderson-Rowland 1, Joseph E. Urban 2, Osaro Ighodaro 3, and Andrea Muchinsky 4 Abstract Providing a supportive freshmen environment for just one academic year is both a challenge and an opportunity. The Office of Student Affairs in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, in partnership with the departments of Residential Life and Student Development, provides a strong university, college, and residence hall support system. Enhancements to the residence life program initiated this year include: a new Assistant Director of Academic Support in Residence Life, a new Action Plan for the Resident Assistants in the residence hall, mandatory bi-weekly floor meetings, the Pizza with a Professor program, and notification of each department about students with midterm deficiencies. The enhancements are described and evaluated. In a continuing quality improvement process, over 120 of the 250 Fall 01 students were surveyed. Their profile is analyzed. Major improvements and challenges still remaining in this living and learning community are discussed. Index Terms Freshmen, Residence Halls, Freshmen Programs, Living and Learning Community, Residence Assistants (RA), Freshman Year Experience (FYE) INTRODUCTION Freshmen engineering retention is a national problem. An important predictor of retention is selectivity, that is, the percentage of applicants accepted, high school class rank, and standardized test scores [1]. Since Arizona State University (ASU) has an acceptance rate of over 80%, attrition is a problem. The university has set 78% as its goal for the one-year retention of first-time, full-time freshmen by the entering class of Fall 03. ASU is a large metropolitan university (over 50,000 students) with many non-traditional students, 80% commuter students, many transfer students (32.5% of new students in Fall 2002), and many working students. The Maricopa Community College system in the vicinity of ASU is the second largest community college system in the United States. Traditionally, ASU has led the nation in transfers accepted and had more transfers each year than freshmen. In 1990, ASU President Lattie Coor set building a large freshmen class as a priority. In 1993, the Freshmen Year Experience Program was launched to help retain freshmen. With the successful recruitment of freshmen, their retention also became a priority for the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) at ASU, which includes engineering, computer science, and construction management. The CEAS had a freshmen class of 1,009 students in Fall Traditionally, half of the CEAS freshmen worked, most did not live on campus, and most did not use their ASU account. It was clear that special support programs were needed to make the institution more supportive, especially to retain freshmen. Clustered CEAS housing was envisioned as essential to build community. Cluster housing made study groups readily available, students were grouped by common interests, peer relationships were facilitated, and a learning community was extended outside of the classroom. The orientation program to the University, held for new students for three days before school commenced in the Fall semester, could be continued through this housing community with events with professors and socials. Research of other ASU campus residence programs has shown that participation in events is necessary to increase retention. Residence hall communities for freshmen are a part of the Freshmen Year Experience (FYE) Program at ASU. Building freshmen residence hall communities is a challenge. The dynamics change with a new group of students, new Resident Assistants (RAs), and a new CEAS Graduate Assistant (GA) each academic year. The Residence Hall staff may also change. Therefore, building a living and learning community for freshmen is a work in progress: problems are identified, problems are solved, and new problems arise. 1 Mary R. Anderson-Rowland, Arizona State University, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, P.O. Box , Tempe, Arizona , mary.anderson@asu.edu 2 Joseph E. Urban, Arizona St ate University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, P.O. Box , Tempe, Arizona, , joseph.urban@asu.edu 3 Osaro Ighodaro, Arizona State University, Residential Life, P.O. Box , Tempe, Arizona, , osaro.ighodaro@asu.edu 4 Andrea Muchinsky, Arizona State University, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, P.O. Box , Tempe, Arizona, , andrea.muchinsky@asu.edu /02/$ IEEE 6-9, 2002, Boston, MA S2C-5

2 BUILDING A CEAS RESIDENCE HALL COMMUNITY An Engineering Residence Hall floor for all CEAS students was initiated by the Associate Dean of Student Affairs in Fall 96. The opportunity to live on an engineering residence hall floor was then advertised in all recruitment efforts. Forty engineering freshmen (1/2 floor) chose this housing for Falls 96 and 97. Advisors visited the dorm and special speakers came. However, attendance was quite low. Residential Life then made the decision to allow the CEAS Office of Student Affairs some autonomy over the CEAS community and to assign their students to the residence hall rooms for Fall 98. In order to better build the community, a roommate preference survey was developed for freshmen entering in Fall 98 [2]. Several modifications have been made to the survey since Fall 98, but its use has remained essentially the same. The survey asks for basic demographic information, including gender and smoking. Genders are never mixed in a suite and students who have a smoking preference are never placed with non-smoking students. The Mathematics class in which they will be enrolled is listed and the student is asked if they prefer to room with someone in the same degree program. Other questions include whether the student is a morning or a night person, and what they mean by night. Night people may go to sleep at midnight, 1:00 a.m. or later, or often pull all-nighters. The student is asked if they consider themselves athletic, if they are a hard worker at studying, if they prefer quiet or music when they study, if they keep their room tidy, and if they consider themselves outgoing, flexible, or reserved. In turn, the student is asked if they would prefer a roommate who is outgoing, flexible, or reserved. The type of music and how loud they prefer their music is also asked. These two items are considered by most students to be the most important on the survey in predicting a successful roommate match. The students are also asked if they have any hobbies or special interests and if there are any special accommodations that they require. Of special help in matching roommates are the three factors that the student then identifies as the most important factors in the assignment of a roommate. If a student has a specific roommate request and that student is also in the CEAS, then that request is honored if each student requests the other. The use of the Freshmen Engineering Housing Survey immediately served as a recruitment tool and more students chose to live on the designated engineering floors. By Fall 99, 188 CEAS students filled floors 12, 13, and 14 in Manzanita Residence Hall, conveniently located to most CEAS classes. An engineering GA was hired to live in an apartment on the ground floor of Manzanita and was available for tutoring and counseling. The GA had good rapport with the students and even held a special Physics tutoring session for several hours on a request by students close to final exams. Each month the students had the opportunity to have Dinner with a Professor from a different CEAS department. Attendance was still modest. The majority of the students, especially females, judged living in Manzanita a positive experience and would recommend the engineering floor to an incoming freshman. The common complaints were that the elevators were often broken or slow (12-14 flights of stairs is a long way to climb) and that although there were computer labs on two of the floors, there were no Ethernet connections in the rooms. By Fall 00, all Manzanita rooms were wired for Ethernet. The Office of Student Affairs had made a request to the University Administration for the Ethernet connections, with support from the Student Affairs Advisory Council. This implementation was not an easy or inexpensive task since the building had not been constructed in a way that made the connections easy to install. In Fall 00, 60% of the CEAS students living in Manzanita came with their own computer. The CEAS requested and was assigned to floors 6, 7, 8, and 9. This request was made in response to the complaints of the students the year before on the problems with the residence hall elevators. Some 250 CEAS students chose to live on these floors. In cooperation with the Barrett Honors College, CEAS students were able to choose to live in an engineering wing in the Honors College and so indicate on the Freshmen Engineering Housing Survey. Events were not well-advertised and low attendance at engineering events continued. There was no engineering GA support available for the students in Spring 01. There was low use of ASU , ( sent to the CEAS residents were returned or unopened) even though its use as a way to receive information and reminders of events and opportunities had been stressed during orientation and workshops. In spite of all this, the general assessment by the students of the communities experience was positive. RESIDENCE LIFE/CEAS PARTNERSHIP ENHANCED Beginning in Fall 01, Residential Life appointed a new Assistant Director for Academic Affairs. The Assistant Director established regular meetings with the CEAS Associate Dean of Student Affairs, the Inclusive Learning Communities Director, the engineering GA, and Manzanita Residence Hall staff. This team of individuals meets biweekly to address emerging issues with the community. The Assistant Director established mandatory bi-weekly hall floor meetings of the RA with the students on his/her floor. An Academic Action Plan was implemented, requiring the RA to meet twice a semester with each student on his or her floor. The RAs were given pre-selected reflective questions clustered around relevant content areas. They were then trained on how to facilitate the meetings with the residents. Following the meetings with the residents, the RA helped each student to make an academic plan and talked about goals and resources with the student. The Assistant Director S2C-6

3 examined midterm grades and probation assessment of the engineering students. The CEAS followed-up with the departments and with Student Academic Services in the college. Students in academic difficulty were sent a letter identifying the essential resources available to the student for improving the academic situation. Fortunately, an effective GA was secured for the academic year. The CEAS GA attended all floor meetings of the students and RA on each floor. She advertised the CEAS programs with , poster, and floor meeting announcements. Even though all ASU students were instructed to use or link to their ASU , many students do not do this linkage. The GA collected the personal addresses of all students who did not respond to her through their ASU accounts. Students who did not complete a survey at a floor meeting were sent surveys by and encouraged to reply. The GA tutored, counseled, and advised as needed. She helped gather survey data through the floor meetings and the RAs. She reserved a room for CEAS meetings and did survey follow-up with students who made suggestions. She helped round up students for the CEAS events and enlisted the RAs to also help bring students to the programs. Events held during Fall 01 included a Meet the VIPs (Associate Deans) Evening which was well attended. The Society of Women Engineers held an information night early in the Fall and was rewarded with several freshmen women becoming active members. A Student Organization Fair was held in the Residence Hall dining facility. Eleven student organizations each had a booth and the fair was well attended. Pizza with a Professsor replaced Dinner with a Professor. Each event had good publicity with messages sent to the students and large posters hung on each floor as well as in the lobby by the engineering GA. A different professor from each of the departments in the college was invited to talk with the students from 7 to 8 on a week day evening. Pizza and soda were provided for the students. Door prizes of two CEAS or FYE tee shirts were raffled each meeting. The students entered the raffle when they turned in their evaluation at the end of the event. The attendance this year was good with 20 to 50 students attending each event. At each event there were students who attended who were not majoring in the field being discussed. The students suggested through evaluations that events be held each week, but we held the events about every two weeks. A picnic was held at the end of the Fall semester with good attendance. A forum/party was held near the end of the Spring semester. Students completed surveys on their residence experience and were served pizza and ice cream sundaes. The completed surveys were used for drawings of many door prizes. Over 80 students attended this largest event of the year. Krispy Kreme doughnuts were served on Reading Day to the floor with the most students in attendance. These events are instrumental in facilitating peer to peer student relationships and outside of classroom contact with CEAS faculty. The RAs contributed to the success of the CEAS living and learning community. The RAs helped urge students to attend the events and helped with the surveys at their floor meetings. This assistance resulted in a much improved response rate on the surveys. Last year we only received 71 surveys. This year we collected over 120 surveys, about 50% of the engineering floor students. Problems identified by the surveys included a software request for Maple to be available in the computer lab available on the 8 th floor. The software was purchased and installed during the Spring semester. The students requested that paper and toner be available for the printer. Paper was made available to engineering students at the residence hall lobby desk by request. The desk attendants were advised to give sheets at a time to engineering students. Some students indicated on the survey that they were not aware of tutoring services that were available to them. The GA sent an message to all of the students listing these resources. The GA contacted all of the students who made suggestions on the survey, told them of the solutions that we had instituted, and gained clarification on some of the other suggestions. INCLUSIVE LEARNING COMMUNITIES The Freshmen Engineering Residence Hall Floors are now considered a component of our Inclusive Learning Communities (ILC) Program in the CEAS. The ILC Program also includes: EnGAGE I, an integrated class of English, Calculus I, Introduction to Engineering, and Physics; EnGAGE II, cohorts of 20 students having three classes in common; Academic Mentoring; Career Mentoring; Web-based support for student dialogue; and Faculty Involvement. Usually some students participate in EnGAGE I. Sixty percent of the over 1,000 freshmen participated in EnGAGE II in Fall 01. Academic Mentoring served 285 students in Fall 01 and 230 in Spring 02. The students met in groups according to their mathematics class for concept building. Supervised by a graduate student, the student mentors led the concept building classes and also gave a practice exam before the midterm exam and the final. The exams were graded and the students had a chance to see how they were doing. The exams were instituted because our students have reported that the first mathematics exam in college is usually difficult because it is usually quite different and more demanding than the mathematics exams they took in high school. By taking a practice exam before the first real mathematics exam, the students have an opportunity to become familiar with the form of the test, to gauge their ability to complete the exam in the required time, and to obtain feedback on how well they know the material. Our studies have shown that 75% of the freshmen who receive a grade below a C in their first Mathematics class will not return for their sophomore year [3]. To lower the number of S2C-7

4 students who earn a grade below C in their first mathematics class, we have put a plan in place. A mandatory placement exam was established for Calculus I, an optional placement exam was made available for Pre-Calculus, and the opportunity to do concept building and to take practice exams was offered to all students. In the Career Mentoring Program, students are paired with one or two local engineers. The mentors and mentees are given training and sign a contract on the expectations of the mentorship. The web-based support program allows the mentors and mentees to sign up, dialogue, and visit related links. Faculty are involved in Academic Mentoring (allow an announcement in their class and are consulted on the pace and exams given) and in the Pizza with a Professor. For more information on our Inclusive Learning Communities Program, see [4] and [5]. FALL 2001 CEAS FLOOR DEMOGRAPHICS The four engineering floors were filled with 246 CEAS students in Fall The females comprised 22.75% of the students (a slight overrepresentation of females in the CEAS freshmen class) and the males were 77.25%. In-state students made up 52.94% of the residents, while 43.92% were from out-of-state, and 3.13% were international students. The students were generally housed by major. Computer Science comprised the largest major group, with 21.56% of the total students. The other large groups were Computer Systems Engineering: 14.90%, Aerospace: 14.90%, Mechanical: 12.94%, Electrical: 10.58%, Civil: 8.23%, and Bioengineering: 6.66%. Seventy-two percent of the students had their own computer in their room. In spite of all of the urging of the students to be connected with their ASU account, 90 of the 246 students (over 36%) gave non-asu address. Of the 241 students who have identified their ethnicity, 22.8% are underrepresented minority students (4.2% Black, 12.4% Hispanic, and 6.2% American Indian). Of the total first-time, full-time Fall 01 freshmen, only 18.5% were underrepresented minority students.) Of the female residents that gave their ethnic identity, 37.5% were underrepresented minority students. Of the male residents that gave their ethnic identity, only 11.9% were underrepresented minority students. Of the total first-time, full-time freshmen students who identified their ethnicity, 27.4% of the women were underrepresented minority students and 28.0% of the men. FALL 01 SURVEY RESULTS In recruitment and orientation sessions held for potential and actual CEAS students, we stress that engineering, computer science, and construction management are difficult degree programs. The students are advised to spend 2-4 hours of study outside of class for every hour that they spend in class. We also advise them not to try studying for engineering, computer science, or construction management alone. We strongly urge them to study in groups. We surveyed the students, with a 50% return, to learn more about them. Most of the surveys were collected near the end of the Fall semester, while a few were collected at the beginning of the Spring semester from a floor that had poor attendance at the last floor meeting of the semester when the surveys were given. We were especially interested to learn through a survey how much studying the students did and how much of it was in groups. Over 70% of the students used the meal plan with their residence hall. Meal plans are a proven positive factor for student retention. When asked if their account was linked to their ASU account, 78.7% of the students said yes. Only 52.38% of the students said that they were in a cohort of two or more classes. Only 52.72% of the students said that they studied with other students in Manzanita. When asked about the subjects that they covered in their study groups, 56.66% said their group was on Mathematics, 33.33% studied Chemistry in a group, 15% said that they studied all of their subjects in a group, and 11.66% said that they studied Computer Science in a group. Although 72% of the students had their own computer in their room, the survey showed that 53.8% of the students used the computer lab on the eighth floor of Manzanita. Since one of the outcomes of residence hall living is expected to be that students will find it easier to study in groups, we were interested to know how many students did study with other students in the residence hall. In our survey we were surprised that only 52.72% of the students said that they studied with other students in Manzanita. For those who did study in groups, we asked how often and the number of hours per week each study group met. Figures 1 and 2 show the results. Over 55% of the groups met at least every other day. Sixty percent of last year s Manzanita students, that met in groups, met at least every other day [6]. Over 70% of the students reported that they spent less than 5 Percentage of students % Several Times per Day 32.14% 32.14% 17.85% Once Daily Every Other Day Weekly 12.50% Seldom FIGURE. 1 HOW OFTEN STUDY GROUP MEETS hours per week in study groups compared with 64% of the S2C-8

5 students from last year's residence hall cohort. Since we had emphasized the need to study several hours for each hour in class, we had hoped to see an increase in the number of hours of study per week in this year s students. In fact, the number of hours of study decreased. Figure 3 shows that nearly 50% of the students only studied 6 to 10 hours per week and 22% of the students studied 5 hours or fewer per week. In last year s cohort, over 56% studied more than 10 hours per week [6]. In a related question, we asked the students how many hours per week they spent playing on the Internet and with computer games. Forty percent of the students reported % 14.81% 5.55% 7.40% to 9 FIGURE. 2 HOURS SPENT IN STUDY GROUPS PER WEEK 10 + remained on the CEAS floors for the Spring semester. Some of these students have left the university, but some have now selected friends with whom to share an apartment. When asked if they would have the same roommate the next semester, 52.6% said yes, 18.69% were not sure, and 27.10% said no. The Hall Director has reported that there is less roommate conflict on the engineering floors than on the other floors. It is assumed that the use of the Freshmen Engineering Housing Survey to place each student with a compatible roommate is the main cause for this increased harmony % 22.11% 13.46% 16.34% 9.61% 0 to 5 6 to10 11 to to and above FIGURE. 4 HOURS PER WEEK SPENT PLAYING ON THE INTERNET AND WITH COMPUTER GAMES % 49.54% 18.34% 0.91% 3.66% 5.50% 0 to 5 6 to to to to to 30 FIGURE. 3 NUMBER OF HOURS OF STUDY PER WEEK. 25% % 16.17% Manzy Tutoring Tutoring Center Professors Friends 17.64% no tutoring spending over 10 hours per week on the computer in activity outside of their academics as shown in Figure 4. By contrast less than 29% of the students reported spending over 10 hours per week studying. Since academic mentoring and free tutoring is available in Manzanita every evening from 6 to 11, we asked the students where they went for tutoring assistance. Figure 5 shows the results. Only 16% of the students used the tutoring available in their residence hall and over 17% of the respondents did not take advantage of any tutoring! Over 82% of the students surveyed said that they would remain on the CEAS floors during the next semester. Additionally, 7.47% said that they were not sure and 10.28% said that they would not. In fact, 86.6% of the students FIGURE. 5 TUTORING SERVICES USED Over 64% of the students knew who the GA was, 16.32% had talked to her, and 44.44% said that she was helpful. When asked if the floor RA was helpful, 86.23% said yes, 7.33% were not sure, and 6.42% said no. Over 60% of the students said that there were adequate activities, 22.01% were not sure, and 17.43% said no. Awareness of the CEAS activities was much higher than in any other year of the program, probably due to the use of the personal addresses. Over 94.5% of the respondents were aware of the Pizza with a Professor events. Over 88% were aware of Manzanita Hall Meetings. Awareness of other events S2C-9

6 included: Fall Orientation, 83.63%; Associate Deans Event, 63.63%; Academic Mentoring, 63.55%, and Career Mentoring, 60.90%. When asked how they felt about their academic endeavors to date, the students responded: very satisfied, 17.27%; somewhat satisfied, 45.45%; neutral, 19.09%; somewhat unsatisfied, 14.54%, and very unsatisfied, 3.63%. Thus over 62% were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their academic endeavors compared with only about half of last year s cohort being similarly satisfied. This result is somewhat surprising since it appears that this year s students were not studying as many hours as last year s students, even though adequate study hours had been stressed in their orientation. When asked if Manzanita had been a positive experience, 32.28% strongly agreed; 61.9% agreed; 4.76% disagreed; and 0.95% strongly disagreed. Therefore, over 94% of the students concluded that their Manzanita experience was positive compared with 86% of last year s students [6]. When asked if they would recommend the Manzanita Residence Hall experience to a freshman, 36.11% strongly agreed; 51.85% agreed; 9.25% disagreed; and 2.77% strongly disagreed. While 83% of the last year s respondents would recommend the Manzanita experience to a freshman, 88% of this year s freshmen cohort would give the recommendation. DISCUSSION In general, we were pleased with the results of our efforts with this year s Residence Community. Through the diligence of the GA obtaining the account used by each student, we were better able to communicate to the students about the events that were available for them. The students appeared quite enthusiastic about the Pizza with a Professor Program and many were repeat attendees, although some only attended when the topic was their current major. Pizza appeared to be a better draw for students than the cookies and brownies that we offered in previous years. The professors that participated were essential to the success of the program. We need to continue to find ways to attract additional faculty involvement. Additionally, we might consider instituting a faculty appreciation night where the students in the community are encouraged to acknowledge the faculty that have been most influential to the students' first year experience in college. The biggest challenge remains in student apathy. This challenge was the conclusion by this year s GA. The students choose (or their parents choose for them) to live in the engineering community, but many of them take the attitude show me what you can do for me. We present the students with many opportunities and the challenge is to convince them to take advantage of these opportunities. The GA believed that the solution involved tapping into the peer networks that the residents form on their own. The GA noticed that when she talked to individual students directly about attending events, the student often showed up with a few friends. If one student can be convinced of the benefits of participation, they will spread the message for us. FUTURE PLANS While this year s residence hall program was the most successful to date, there are plans to improve the experience. We will attempt to fill five residence floors for Fall 02. Residential Life has given the CEAS the opportunity to fill five floors, if the demand is there. In recent years, the demand for residence housing has been greater than the supply. Information about the CEAS residence floors is sent to every student who is accepted into the college for Fall 02 and information on the program is als o given at each Orientation Session held on campus for entering freshmen. We must locate and hire the GA early each year for the next fall. We wish to develop additional early alert programs and intervention for academic at-risk students. An essential aspect of this is Academic Advising. We need to continue to explore varying ways that we can facilitate the interaction between the Academic advisor in the CEAS and the students in the community. We will continue to combat student apathy. We hope to publish a program schedule at the beginning of each semester with events held each week. We plan to develop additional retention assessment instruments tied to the activities. We also need to continue to track the persistence of students that participate, starting in the spring semester of their first year through their senior year. Where applicable, we ought to consider offering some engineering courses in the classroom in the residence hall. REFERENCES [1] Morrison, Catherine, Griffin, Kenneth, and Marcotullio, Peter Retention of Minority Students in Engineering: Institutional Variability and Success, NACME Research Letter, Volume 5, Number 2, December 1995, pp [2] Anderson-Rowland, Mary R., Using a Roommate Preference Survey for Students Living on an Engineering Dorm Floor, Conference Proceedings, Frontiers in Education 98, Tempe, Arizona, November 1998, pp [3] Anderson-Rowland, Mary R., The Effect of Course Sequence on the Retention of Freshman Engineering Students: When Should the Intro Engineering Course Be Offered? Conference Proceedings, Frontiers in Education 98, Tempe, Arizona, November 1998, pp [4] Anderson-Rowland, Mary R., Haag, Susan G., Urban, Joseph E., and Braun, Ellen E., Retaining Freshmen Women Engineering Students Through Inclusive Learning Communities, WEPAN 2000 National Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, June 2000, p [5] Anderson-Rowland, Mary R., Urban, Joseph E., and Haag, Susan G., Including Engineering Students, Conference Proceedings, Frontiers in Education 00, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, p. F2F-5-F2F-12. [6] Anderson-Rowland, Mary R., and Urban, Joseph E., Evaluating Freshmen Retention Efforts in Engineering Housing, Conference Proceedings, Frontiers in Education 01, Reno, Nevada, October 2001, T4G-1-T4G-5. S2C-10