Search for: All records

In January 2020, an S-STEM grant (Grant #1930497) was awarded to East Carolina University (Greenville, NC) in partnership with three local community colleges. The community college partners were selected to participate in this program based upon their geographic proximity to the university and their offering an Associate’s in Engineering degree program. The purpose of this program was to support low-income students through scholarships and programming designed to help the community college students feel welcomed and part of the engineering program at the university before they transfer to the university. The project intended to recruit 80 total scholars in two cohorts of 40. Each cohort was to be comprised of 20 university students and 20 community college students. In-person recruiting events were planned in the service areas of each of the community colleges and in a 10-county region surrounding the university. The original plan for programming was to offer special events and speakers on each campus throughout the academic year so that all of the scholars could meet each other and learn more about the engineering profession. When events were held on the university campus, the goal was to showcase the laboratories and programs available once students complete their associate’s degree and transfer and for them to begin developing relationships with the engineering faculty at the university. When events were held on the community college campuses, the goal was for the university students to learn more about the engineering programs at each of the community colleges and to develop relationships with the community college students. The global pandemic required significant pivoting from the original plan for activities and recruitment of students. This paper outlines the recruitment and retention of S-STEM scholars at the three partnering community colleges. In particular, this paper will discuss the three very different approaches each community college took to offering classes and activities on campus during the Covid-19 pandemic and how that impacted course offerings and program implementation. This works in progress paper outlines the activities done to this point in the project and the plans for future years. 

In January 2020 East Carolina University (ECU) in partnership with Lenoir Community College (LCC), Pitt Community College (PCC), and Wayne Community College (WCC) was awarded an S-STEM Track 3 Grant (Grant number: 1930497). The purpose of this grant was to support low-income students at each partner institution, to research best practices in recruiting and retaining low-income students at both universities and community colleges, and to research how such programs influence the transfer outcomes from two-year to four-year schools. This grant provides scholarship support for two cohorts of students, one starting their engineering studies in Fall 2020 and the other starting their engineering studies in Fall 2021. Each cohort was to be comprised of 40 students including 20 students at ECU and 20 students divided among the three partnering community colleges. In addition to supporting student scholarships, this grant supported the establishment of new student support mechanisms and enhancement of existing support systems on each campus. This project involved the creation of a faculty mentoring program, designing a summer bridge program, establishing a textbook lending library, and enhancing activities for students in a living-learning community, expansion of university tutoring initiatives to allow access for community college students, and promoting a new peer mentoring initiative. The program emphasizes career opportunities including promoting on-campus career fairs, promoting internship and co-op opportunities, and bringing in guest speakers from various industry partners. A goal of the program was to allow community college students to build relationships with university students and faculty so they can more easily assimilate into the student body at the university upon transfer. This paper presents the challenges presented to the project in the first year and the pivoting that occurred due the pandemic. Data is presented regarding recruitment of scholars in both cohorts and retention of scholars from year 1 to year 2. 

The ability to identify one’s own confusion and to ask a question that resolves it is an essential metacognitive skill that supports self-regulation (Winne, 2005). Yet, while students receive substantial training in how to answer questions, little classroom time is spent training students how to ask good questions. Past research has shown that students are able to pose more high-quality questions after being instructed in a taxonomy for classifying the quality of their questions (Marbach‐Ad & Sokolove, 2000). As pilot data collection in preparation for a larger study funded through NSF-DUE, we provided engineering statics students training in writing high-quality questions to address their own confusions. The training emphasized the value of question-asking in learning and how to categorize questions using a simple taxonomy based on prior work (Harper et al., 2003). The taxonomy specifies five question levels: 1) an unspecific question, 2) a definition question, 3) a question about how to do something, 4) a why question, and 5) a question that extends knowledge to a new circumstance. At the end of each class period during a semester-long statics course, students were prompted to write and categorize a question that they believed would help them clarify their current point of greatest confusion. Through regular practice writing and categorizing such questions, we hoped to improve students' abilities to ask questions that require higher-level thinking. We collected data from 35 students in courses at two institutions. Over the course of the semester, students had the opportunity to write and categorize twenty of their own questions. After the semester, the faculty member categorized student questions using the taxonomy to assess the appropriateness of the taxonomy and whether students used it accurately. Analysis of the pilot data indicates three issues to be addressed: 1) Student compliance in writing and categorizing their questions varied. 2) Some students had difficulty correctly coding their questions using the taxonomy. 3) Some student questions could not be clearly characterized using the taxonomy, even for faculty raters. We will address each of these issues with appropriate refinements in our next round of data collection: 1) Students may have been overwhelmed with the request to write a question after each class period. In the future, we will require students to write and categorize at least one question per week, with more frequent questions encouraged. 2) To improve student use of the taxonomy in future data collection, students will receive more practice with the taxonomy when it is introduced and more feedback on their categorization of questions during the semester. 3) We are reformulating our taxonomy to accommodate questions that may straddle more than one category, such as a question about how to extend a mathematical operation to a new situation (which could be categorized as either a level 3 or 5). We are hopeful that these changes will improve accuracy and compliance, enabling us to use the intervention as a means to promote metacognitive regulation and measure changes as a result, which is the intent of the larger scope of the project.