The ROSES Program at
Michigan State University:
History and Assessment
ASEE Annual Meeting
Albuquerque, NM
June 2001
Regina T. Zmich
Program Director
Thomas F. Wolff, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
http://www.egr.msu.edu/~wolff
Prologue
The first semester is hard on freshmen and there needs to
be a way to prepare us for how difficult it really is. Not all
incoming freshmen are clueless, party-going slackers,
some struggle very much to achieve a 4.0 and good
academic standing without always making it. It is
important to know that you can’t blow off any of the work
or not go to class and still do well…
… 1998-99 ROSES student, assessment survey…
2
ROSES




Residential Option for Science and
Engineering Students
A residential living-learning program
About 150-200 students per year,
mostly engineering, also science and
agriculture
Started in Fall 1993
3
Program Components





Common residence hall (Bailey Hall)
One-credit seminar, fall semester
Reserved sections of
common freshman courses
Tutoring
Peer Leaders
4
Why? Some facts about MSU




Liberal approach to freshman major
selection, restricted approach to junior
admission
Nearly 1000 of 6600 freshmen declare
engineering
Capacities for juniors in the eleven majors
equals 795
Large variance in freshman skills, interests
and knowledge
5
Engineering Freshmen Math Classes
Calc II
9.9%
Calc I
42.4%
Calc III
4.3%
Remedial
Math
8.0%
Algebra
8.7%
Alg & Trig
26.7%
6
MSU Freshmen

Hence…





MSU is big
MSU freshmen are academically diverse
30%+ change their majors in and out of
engineering
Required cohort programs such as “Freshmen
Engineering,” “Common Freshman Year,” etc., are
problematical
The solution...
7
ROSES program

The ROSES program is




voluntary, for those who express interest in a
program with an engineering and science identity
selective, for those who are likely to succeed
multi-faceted -- academic, social, residential
The program provides an atmosphere of a
small, focused program in the midst of a
large and diverse university setting
8
History

1992 Developed the model


Experience from MSU’s Lyman Briggs School
1993 Started program with 142 students



ROSES seminar with single large lecture on
engineering and study skills
Evening recitation
Honors students tutors
9
History

1994




Engineering named lead College
Seminar in three large classes, by College
Upperclassmen hired as tutors
1995



Dropped large lectures in favor of small section
model, 12 to 43 students
Increased ties to intended majors
For some students, this was their first small class
10
Current Structure







24 ACT score and 3.30 high school GPA
automatically admitted
200 students in Bailey Hall; 150 are engineers
Success seminar series in residence hall
Enrollment in common sections of Calculus,
Chemistry, Computing, Bioscience, Writing, Arts and
Humanities, Social Science
ROSES seminars
Tutoring
Sophomore Peer Leaders
11
Seminar Class Goals



Provide orientation to students’ college,
the University, and collegiate life
Introduce strategies and skills for
academic success
Explore possible paths of
career development
Classes are taught by professional
advisors, grouped by intended major
12
Seminar Course Requirements




Success seminar
attendance
Writing assignments
Oral communication
activities
Career exploration
activies




Exposure to University
resources: library,
JOBTRAK, job fair
Making connections
with faculty and staff
Assigned readings and
expectation of critical
analysis
New! Disassembly
project
13
Peer Leaders





Former ROSES students
Help students become acquainted and
socialize
Plan extracurricular activities
Serve as TAs for seminar course
Paid 5 to 10 hours per week and get single
rooms in Bailey Hall
14
Assessment -- Program Satisfaction
Detailed questions are in paper
Agree or strongly agree
Question
1995
1999
1
Career Motivation
70
85
2
Strategies and Skills
82
91
3
Enhanced Development 63
90
4
Orientation
86
91
5
Campus Resources
90
93
6
Academic Prep
50
75
15
Assessment -- Program Satisfaction
Detailed questions are in paper
Question
Agree or strongly agree
1995
1999
7
Linkages with Students 72
91
8
Activities
59
76
9
Course Organization
83
99
96
100
10 Instructional Team
11 Homework
73
16
Assessment - Student Performance





Detailed tables are in paper
Compared ROSES and non-ROSES
students with similar course loads in Fall 96,
98, 00
Similar ACT scores, predicted GPAs
Grades in Chemistry, Calculus I, Social
Science
Credits, GPA, Retention
17
Assessment - Student Performance

1996


1998



No significant differences ( = 0.04)
No significant differences except…
Calculus I grade 0.48 lower !
2000




Chemistry +0.41
Calculus +0.50
Cum credits +1.35 in first semester
Cum GPA +0.37
18
Discussion


Program satisfaction rose fairly uniformly
over eight years
Student performance rose quickly in last few
years… Why?




Staff had converged on realistic expectations
Role of peer leaders better defined
Improved peer leader recruiting and training
More attention to scheduling into the common
courses
19
Discussion

Interested Groups



Women students
Parents
Essay for admission

Emphasis on students’ reasons for joining
program, not parents’ reasons
20
Conclusions -- Lessons learned





Small seminar classes of 25+/-, not large
sections
Important role of peer leaders
Ensuring enrollment in the common
sections
Need for considerable structure and
management
Need for proactive guidance -- simply
putting them in one place doesn’t
accomplish it
21
Thank You !