Restructuring a large, introductory course to help underrepresented
minority and first-generation students perform better.
Kelly Hogan, Andrea Reubens, and Bob Henshaw (UNC at Chapel Hill)
and Erika Bagley (Auburn University.)
- One-semester, “Principles of Biology”
- 400+ students
- Mixed majors; Few (~20%) are Biology majors
- Most students are first year students.
- Meet 3 hr/per week;
lab course is separate
- Fairly diverse
population: at least
25% of the course are
underrepresented
minorities.
- No paid TAs for
lecture
The President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) suggests
our biggest problem may be
in our introductory courses.
(National Research Council, “Expanding Underrepresented
Minority Participation” 2011)
RESULTS:
TABLE 1: Fall 2009 (traditional)
Performance on Exams
In traditional semesters
examined, an achievement gap in
student performance was seen
between underrepresented
minorities (African Americans
and Latinos) compared to
Caucasian/Asian students. A
representative semester (Table 1)
shows this gap exists throughout
the semester for all four exams.
In a representative restructured
semester (Table 2) the
performance gap disappears for
Latinos, and is reduced for
African Americans. These results
have been replicated in three
restructured semesters.
Race/Ethnicity1
African American
*
(non-Hispanic)
Asian
*
Fall 2009 Exam Scores (Mean Scores)
Final
4-Exam
Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam Average
54.44
73.29
*
Latino/Latina or Hispanic*
Caucasian (non-Hispanic)
Other
65.72
59.83
61.14
59.2
79.14
72.54
67.62
67.33
52.48
71.43
67.27
62.77
61.49
51.19
72.76
68.44
61.87
66.29
54.27
73.84
68.38
62.91
63.77
1
Exam 1-3, final exam, and the 4-exam average between 1) African American Students and Caucasian Students, 2) African
American Students and Asian Students, 3) Latino/Latina and Caucasian Students, and 4) Latino/Latina and Asian Students
are statistically significant at p<.05.
TABLE 2: Fall 2011 (restructured)
Performance on Exams
Race/Ethnicity2
African American
*
(non-Hispanic)
Asian
Caucasian (non-Hispanic)
Latino/Latina or Hispanic
Other
Fall 2011 Exam Scores (Mean Scores)
Final
4-Exam
Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam Average
57.83
71.51
73.48
67.49
72.85
64.45
75.25
75.87
71.37
75.71
80.65
85.08
87.53
83.53
84.41
60.96
69.59
71.96
64.52
68.96
Key components to course:
various types of high schools across the state. A study from the
University of Washington demonstrated that the achievement
gap could be reduced inside the classroom setting without
additional resources and costs through active learning and
more class structure in the form of pre-class reading quizzes,
informal group work, weekly exams, and clickers. (Haak, D.C.
et al., Science, 2011). We asked if the model could be
replicated at UNC and have as similar impact with our at-risk
students (under-represented minorities and first generation
students).
FIGURE 2: Grades become more evenly
distributed in a restructured course.
Fall 2009: 4-Exam Average by Race/Ethnicity
80.0%
70.0%
65.79
74.97
77.11
71.78
75.36
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
African American
30.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander
20.0%
Caucasian
10.0%
Latino/Latina
0.0%
90 - 100 80 - 89
70 - 79
60 - 69
Poll
Face-to- Mastering Interactive Guided
Everywhere
Face
class
Biology
reading
class
Lecture homework activities questions
response
We hypothesized that restructuring the
introductory course would help to “level
the playing field” for a diverse group of students from
The shift to a more evenly spread of grades is easily
noticed when the range of grades is examined
(FIGURE 2). Of note, 72% of African Americans had
a four-exam average of 50% or below in the
traditional format and in the restructured semester,
only 32% of African Americans averaged 50% or
lower. This is consistent with a reduction in the
number of D/Fs in the class as a whole.
Percentage of Students
The exit from STEM fields is far worse
for minority students: After 4 years,
only 15% of Latinos, Black and Native
American students who had an initial
interest in STEM majors graduate with
these degrees.
How was the course restructured?
Biol 101 at UNC:
(National Center for Education Statistics in 2009)
50 and
below
4-Exam Average Ranges
Early outreach
to students
scoring low on
first exam
Traditional
3/wk
No
No
No
No
No
Reformed
3/wk
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Students scoring below 50% on the first exam were
deemed “at-risk” and were encouraged to come to
office hours to complete a self-assessment and
conversation with the instructor about study skills
and resources. The results have varied per
semester. In Fall 2010, students who completed
the self-assessment (n= 16) after exam 1 had a
significantly better performance on all subsequent
exams compared to at-risk peers who were invited
but did not complete it (data not shown). Yet in
Fall 2011, (Figure 4) there was only a significant
impact on exam 2 for the students (n = 20)
completing the self assessment, when compared to
their at-risk peers. These differences did not
persist for the third and final exams. Thus, the
impact has been replicated for exam 2, but beyond
that, the data are unclear. Completion of other
interventions along with the self-assessment (i.e.
study skills workshop and tutoring) did not
significantly add to its impact when examined
together (data not shown).
FIGURE 4: The self-assessment
significantly impacts at-risk students
early in the semester.
Completion vs. Non-Completion of Self Assessment
80
75.73
70
73.53
64.85
59.62
60
54.65
50
Mean
Of all students originally interested in STEM
fields, less than 40% graduate with a degree
in STEM fields in four years
44.83
53.08 53.4
56.07
43.23
Completed Self
Assessment
40
30
Did Not Complete Self
Assessment
20
10
0
Exam 1
Exam 2*
Exam 3
Final Exam Average Exams Only
Exams
Note: Mean score from the first to the second exam for students that completed the self assessment increased by 20.02
points vs. students that did not complete the self assessment (increase of 11.41 points).
*Statistically significant at p<.05.. n = 66 students invited to complete self-assessment; n= 20 completed it.
2
Exam 1-3, final exam, and the 4-exam average between 1) African American Students and Caucasian Students and 2)
African American Students and Asian Students, are statistically significant at p<.05.
Fall 2011: 4-Exam Average by Race/Ethnicity
80.0%
FIGURE 1. A “leveling” of the four-exam average for different
races/ethnicities in a restructured (Fall 2011) semester compared to a
traditional semester (Fall
2009).
90
4-Examp Average
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fall 2009
65.1
Fall 2011
75.0
African American
54.3
65.8
Asian
73.8
75.0
Caucasian
68.4
77.2
Latino/Latina or Hispanic
62.9
71.8
Overall
CONCLUSIONS:
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
African American
30.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander
20.0%
Caucasian
10.0%
Latino/Latina
0.0%
90 - 100 80 - 89
70 - 79
60 - 69
50 and
below
4-Exam Average Ranges
Figure 3 shows that first FIGURE 3: No
generation students (n = performance gap for
50) performed equally
first-generation students.
100
well in the restructured
80
course (Fall 2011)
60
compared to their non40
20
first generation cohorts
0
(n= 328). No significant
difference was found in
the four-exam averages.
Four-exam average
(Mean)
Although the exam averages for all student groups were higher in restructured
semesters, the goal is not to compare absolute numbers from semester to semester, since
the exam questions are new each semester. Figure 1 depicts the “leveling” of the student
performance within the restructured semester– as compared to the bigger gap seen
within the traditional format.
Percentage of Students
70.0%
Students come to their introductory courses with various levels of preparedness. By increasing
the structure to the course as discussed above, students have more chances to practice material
inside and outside the classroom at their own pace. Student surveys indicate the number of hours
spent studying has increased several hours for all students with the restructured course (data not
shown), which might have been expected since study time is positively correlated to academic
performance (Brint, S and Cantwell, E.M., Teachers College Record, 2010). Similar to the study
by Haak et al., course changes have disproportionately helped certain populations of students
traditionally at-risk (Science, 2011). In our study, we added a metacognitive self- assessment
intervention, focusing efforts on students who failed the first exam. The self-assessment had an
immediate significant impact for students completing it, and thus it is worthwhile to continue to
determine if this immediate benefit persists or wanes by the end of the semester. Finding more
opportunities to practice content one-on-one (supplemental instruction, tutoring, and office
hours) remain important for at-risk students, but their regular attendance remains the challenge.
At UNC and many institutions, class sizes are increasing and budget cuts are affecting access to
TAs and academic services. Increasing course structure and active learning did not require any
additional university resources, although it did require an instructor to make significant change.
What will it take for more faculty to change?