SUCCESS IN SCIENCE (SCI 002)

1
SUCCESS IN SCIENCE (SCI 002)

• COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
• SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
• SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

PROFESSOR VIDA KENK INTERIM DEAN COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE MICHAEL RANDLE, STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST, ACADEMIC SERVICES
2
Outline

• I. San Jose State Demographic Overview
• II. Description of the history nature of the
  collaboration
• a. The methods used to facilitate faculty
  buy-in
• b. The program design
• c. Training necessary for faculty and staff to
  participate as instructors for the boot camp
  course. 
• III. Course objectives
• IV. Outcomes
• V. Examples of targeted student populations that
  have been served by the
• course
• VI. Ways in which the utilization of the course
  has saved the campus tens of
• thousands of dollars.

3
SAN JOSE STATE DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

• CAMPUS POP
• ENROLLMENT APPROX. 29,000
• UNDERGRADUATE APPROX. 21,000
• AGE
• Under 19 14
• 20-24 43
• 25-29 21
• Over 30 22
• SJSU students come from
• Surrounding areas 54
• Other counties in CA 39
• Out of state 7

• Ethnicity
• Pac Island .6
• Other Hispanic 3.6
• Mexican Amer. 9.5
• Filipino 7
• Asian 31.7
• White 26.3
• African Amer. 4
• Amer. Indian .5
• Decline to state 16.8
• Gender
• Women 55
• Men 45

4
Brief History

• Previous existence of Science 2 (pre 1999)
• Need for re-conceptualization
• Idea for collaboration
• Pooling of talents, roles and services
• Selling the idea
• Implementing New Science 2 (1999-present)

5
Steps to BUY-IN

• Choose a team comprised of both faculty student
  development staff
• Develop strong program design
• Meet with chairs of various departments to
  present the idea and the team and hear Chairs
  issues regarding freshmen
• Meet with faculty from each department in the
  College of Science to present the idea at dept.
  meetings and hear faculty issues regarding
  freshmen
• Design Science 2 around issues and concerns of
  Chairs Faculty
• Chair Faculty concerns
• Freshmen exhibit immature behavior
• Class room etiquette lacking (cell phones,
  generally rude, etc.)
• Unprepared for the new (Faculty Institutional)
  expectations that college brings
• Cant tell the good students from the rest
• Students dont seek help
• Freshmen dont engage faculty
• Not convinced that FYE classes work
• Not convinced that all students need an FYE
• No room in the degree program to mandate another
  course

6
CONTRIBUTIONS

• College of Science (faculty)
• Academic Legitimacy
• Respect of faculty
• Ability to capture mandate (students)
• Power of the office (Dean)
• Access and visibility to campus governance powers
  (Campus President, Provost, campus VPs, Undergrad
  Studies, Academic Senate Chair(s), Dept. Chairs,
  etc.)

• Academic Services (EOP Advisors)
• Expertise in program design and student retention
• Expertise in the facilitation of the academic
  acclimation and social integration of targeted
  student populations to the university
• Student centered approach and work style
• Ability to follow up (with students beyond
  course)
• Intimate Knowledge of how campus (bureaucracy)
  works

7
CONTRIBUTIONS

• College of Science
• Dedicated personnel
• Assoc. Dean (part of responsibility)
• CS Advisor (webmaster)
• Classroom space
• Speakers
• Computer labs
• Web site
• Meeting Space
• Funding
• Instructor salaries
• Peer Mentor salaries (fall)
• Training (instructor peer mentor)
• Supplies (Computers, printer-copier,etc.)
• Community Events (BBQ, T-shirts, Ice Cream
  Social,etc.)
• Peer mentor salaries and computer
  infrastructure start up paid for through NSF MARC
  grant. P.I. Herbert Silber

• Academic Services
• Dedicated personnel
• Advisor (liaison)
• Office Space (for peer mentor prgm.)
• Phones, Internet access
• Limited Tech support
• Meeting space
• Technology (LCD projector, laptops)
• Speakers
• Office Supplies
• Peer salaries (spring)

8
PROGRAM DESIGN
MODELS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (FACULTY STAFF)
Chapter 1 Chapter 7 Chapter 15 Beginning of
term middle end of term
LINEAR MODEL OF STUDENT ENGAEMENT (FACULTY)
Financial
Enrollment
Faculty
Student Issues
Personal (family, room mates, job, etc.)
Transition
Academic Support
Bureaucratic
CIRCULAR MODEL OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (STUDENT
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST)
Academic Standing (Pb/Dq)
9
SPIRAL OR CYLINDRICAL MODEL OF STUDENT ENGAGMENT
PROGRAM DESIGN
TERMS END
COMBINED MODELS INTO SPIRAL OR CYLINDRICAL MODEL
CONTENT
ISSUES
BUREAUCRATIC
TRANSITION
FACULTY
BEGINNING OF TERM
PERSONAL
ENROLLMENT
ACADEMIC SUPPORT
FINANCIAL
ACADEMIC STANDING
10
Description of Collaboration

• Science 2
• A PROGRAM IN THE GUISE OF A COURSE
• 3 unit course- currently counts as 3 units of
  elective credit towards graduation
• Components of the course include main
  lecture/seminar, activity sections, peer
  advisor/mentor
• Instructors made up of both faculty (College of
  Science) and advising staff (Academic Services)

11
Training necessary for faculty and staff to
participate as instructors for the boot camp
course

• Models of student engagement
• High School Brain Theory
• Theory of Deconstruction Reconstruction
• Science 2 program model (components roles)
• Goals objectives of Science 2
• Study skills (Note-taking strategies, Test
  taking, Textbook reading strategies,Time
  management, Learning preferences/style, Lecture
  style identification)
• Activity Section Content (Biology, Chemistry,
  Geology, PowerPoint, Excel, Oral Presentation)
• Weekly meetings

12
Course Objectives

• Students should gain an understanding and
  appreciation of
• Their own strengths and weaknesses with respect
  to how they learn
• How to better manage their time in relationship
  to the type of scheduling and freedom being
  experienced by them in the context of being young
  adults in college
• Uses of technology in teaching and communication
  at San Jose State University
• The types of resources and services offered by
  San Jose State University
• The rules which govern them as members of the
  university community
• The diversity to be found at San Jose State
  University among its various student populations
  and faculty
• The diversity of faculty and academic departments
  within the College of Science
• Group dynamics while working in teams
• How science applies to their everyday life and
  that of society

13
Course Program Goals

• Assist first year freshmen with both their social
  and academic integration and acclimation to the
  university
• Increase freshmen student retention from year one
  to year two
• Decrease the percentage of freshmen on probation
  after their first and second semester of college
• Assist students with obtaining academic skills to
  obtain an overall grade point average of 3.0 or
  above after attending their first semester at San
  Jose State University

14
Examples of targeted student populations that
have been served by the course

• Science Freshmen
• Student Athletes
• Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) students
• Student that have been admitted by exception
  (i.e. Summer Bridge)

15

• OUTCOMES

16
AGGREGATE GPA COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3
17
RETENTION (SJSU) COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES)
18
RETENTION (in the College of Science) COMPARISON
FOR CLASS OF 1999 SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS
1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES)
19
ACADEMIC STANDING COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (PERCENTAGES ON
PROBATION OR SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION)
20
FALL 04 PROGRAM OUTCOMES1ST YR STUDENT ATHLETES
In SCIENCE 2

• Number of participants 35
• Average GPA 2.86
• GPA break down
• 3.0-4.0 20/35 (57)
• 2.0-2.9 9/35 (26)
• below 2.0 6/35 (17) on probation/dq

21
FALL 05 PROGRAM OUTCOMES for EOP BRIDGE SPECIAL
ADMITS and CAMPUS SAVINGS

• Cost for a typical Summer Bridge program with
  50-80 Students in a 5 wk residential
• program range between 100,000-150,000
• The Fall 2005 Bridge program was modified into a
  full FYE utilizing Science 2 as an
• FYE transition vehicle.
• The program was renamed Bridge To College
  Transition Program.
• Number of participants 54
• Approximate cost through collaboration- 36,000
• GPA break down Average GPA 2.76
• 3.0-4.0 30/54 (56)
• 2.5-2.9 10/54 (19)
• 2.0-2.49 6/54 (11)
• below 2.0 8/54 (14) on probation or/Subject
  to Disqualification

22
FUTURE EVOLUTIONNext steps and challenges

• Next Steps
• Modify Science 2 curriculum to fit guidelines for
  GE
• Submit course for GE approval
• Involve more faculty in teaching sections of the
  course
• Challenges
• Add GE Learning Objectives to Science 2s current
  Learning Objectives without sacrificing the
  Science 2 mission of retention and academic
  performance
• Funding (sources)
• Continue collaboration between College and
  Academic Services staff

23
THANK YOU!

• ON BEHALF OF THE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
• AND ENROLLMENT ACADEMIC SERVICES OF SAN JOSE
  STATE UNIVERSITY
• THANK YOU FOR COMING ?
• For more information contact
• Professor Vida Kenk,College of Science, San Jose
  State University
• [phone] or vkenk_at_jupiter.sjsu.edu
• Michael Randle, Enrollment Academic Services
• [phone] or mrandle_at_sjsu.edu

24
RETENTION (SJSU) COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2000
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES)
25
RETENTION (in the College of Science) COMPARISON
FOR CLASS OF 2000 SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS
1-2 (IN PERCENTAGES)
26
AGGREGATE GPA COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2000
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3
27
ACADEMIC STANDING COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2000
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (PERCENTAGES ON
PROBATION OR SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION)
28
RETENTION (SJSU) COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2001
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES)
29
RETENTION (in the College of Science) COMPARISON
FOR CLASS OF 2001 SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS
1-2 (IN PERCENTAGES)
30
ACADEMIC STANDING COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2001
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-2 (PERCENTAGES ON
PROBATION OR SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION)
31
AGGREGATE GPA COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 2001
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-2
32
AGGREGATE GPA COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3Quit Sci 2 vs.
Failed Sci 2 vs. Pass Sci 2 vs. Non Sci 2
33
RETENTION (SJSU) COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES)
Quit Sci 2 vs. Failed Sci 2 vs. Pass Sci 2 vs.
Non Sci 2
34
RETENTION (in the College of Science) COMPARISON
FOR CLASS OF 1999 SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS
1-3 (IN PERCENTAGES) Quit Sci 2 vs. Failed Sci 2
vs. Pass Sci 2 vs. Non Sci 2
35
ACADEMIC STANDING COMPARISON FOR CLASS OF 1999
SCIENCE FRESHMEN COHORT YRS 1-3 (PERCENTAGES ON
PROBATION OR SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION) Quit
Sci 2 vs. Failed Sci 2 vs. Pass Sci 2 vs. Non Sci
2