Engineering Supplemental Instruction: Impact on Sophomore Level Engineering Courses

Abstract

Charles is a PhD student in Environmental Sciences at Louisiana State University. In 2012, he earned his master's degree in Medical and Health Physics and has since been working towards a PhD. During his studies, he has worked actively with the LSU STEM Talent and Expansion Program and LSU Center for Academic Success helping with different methods that aim to improve how STEM college students learn including tutorial centers, PLTL, SI, and recitation programs. Dr. Wang's research interests focus on the development of feasible solutions to practical radiation protection and radiation detection issues. The majority of his work has emphasized operational radiation safety, radiation detection instrumentation, air monitoring methodology, and radioactive waste management. He has authored or co-authored more than 30 peer-reviewed publications, conference proceedings and abstracts, and book chapters. He has also chaired five graduate committees and served on another 16 graduate committees. In addition, he has served as a manuscript reviewer for four referred journals (i.e.,

The Unsubstantiated Cutoff: Deeper Analysis of Supplemental Instruction Sessions on Engineering Courses

“…Research conducted by The U.S. Department of Education, Redish, Longfellow, and many others have reported significant benefits to students enrolled in courses that incorporate active learning strategies (1,2,3) . The initial analysis of the impact of Supplemental Instruction on students in the College of Engineering at Louisiana State University (LSU) was consistent with these previous findings (4) . However, researchers like Dawson and McCarthy recognized some sobering truths-many analyses regarding Supplemental Instruction were incomplete and made weak conclusions (5,6) .…”

“…In a previous analysis looking for impacts of SI on course passing rates, attendance data were grouped by: students who attended no sessions, students who attended a few sessions (1-3), and students who regularly attended (4 or more sessions) (4) . To determine if the cutoff (4 or more sessions) was unsubstantiated, a test for linear correlation between number of sessions attended and passing rates was created (Figure 1).…”

“…In the previous study reported by the authors, the cutoff of four sessions attended to be considered a regular SI attendee was chosen based loosely on an assumed average of once a month attendance and/or more than at least the exam reviews (4) . This reality made the findings in the literature review hard hitting, as Dawson's comments were accurate (5) .…”

“…The author critiqued that rationales for "regular attendance" cutoffs or boundaries were often "arbitrary and unsubstantiated," if addressed at all, and that the intervals were usually determined after an effect was expected. Dawson's critique is also applicable to the previous reporting of this research team (4) . Therefore, in an attempt to better define why there is a difference, or to discover evidence for a cutoff, this research proposes a potential means of analysis for attendance cutoffs and attempts to further answer the question of whether the students who attend SI sessions were more likely to succeed regardless of session attendance.…”

“…For a full description of the Engineering SI Program at Louisiana State University's College of Engineering see previous research (4) .…”