instructor-initiated-drop-policy-effect-on-student-success

Instructor Initiated Drop Policy Effect on Student Success Amir Karimi Mechanical Engineering Department University of Texas at San Antonio Abstract One of the student policies at the University of Texas at San Antonio deals with the expectation of students to attend class regularly and participate in class activities In 1980s and early 1990s Instructors had the freedom of administratively drop those students who were not attending lectures or were not submitting homework assignments In mid 1990s the university changed the policy of allowing instructors to drop students administratively and left the decision of dropping courses solely as a student responsibility With the change in this policy more students avoided attending lectures, especially in large class sizes, or submitting homework assignments This resulted in higher student failure rate More recently the university changed this practice by establishing a new Instructor-initiated Drop policy The new policy provides specific guidelines for those instructors who want to adopt and enforce this policy in their courses Under the new policy the instructors are required to state in their courses syllabi the limits for number of times a student being absent or missing assignments, before that student can be dropped from the course An instructor who adopts the instructor-initiated drop policy must first inform those students who are approaching the unexcused number of absences or number of missed assignments limit, before dropping students when the limits are reached This paper provides a full description of the Instructor Initiated drop policy It provides the results of the enforcement of policy in three different courses taught from fall 2018 through fall 2019 semesters The paper provides data on whether the new policy improves class attendance, completion of homework assignments or student success in passing the courses Introduction The University of Texas at Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) policy on class attendance and participation states that1 “The University is committed to promoting student success by communicating the expectation of regular attendance and participation in classes This policy serves as a guide that instructors and students should use to appropriately address student absence from class It identifies steps that may be taken by instructors when absences or missed assignments are unexcused, and the circumstances and steps for students and instructors to take when absences or missed assignments are officially permitted.” From the creation of engineering programs at The University of Texas at San Antonio in fall 1982 until mid-1990s, instructors had the freedom of administratively drop those students who were not attending lectures or were not submitting their homework assignments In mid-1990s the university change the policy by not allowing the instructors administratively drop students due to lack of class attendance or completing homework assignments and left the decision of dropping courses solely as a student responsibility The policy change resulted in more students not attending classes, Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education especially in large classes, and less students submitting homework assignments Therefor student failure rates increased Three Engineering programs started at UTSA in fall 1982 The programs included Civil Engineering (CE), Electrical Engineering (EE), and Mechanical Engineering (ME) Up to 2000, the total ME enrollment was below 300 students The ME program experienced rapid enrollment growth starting in 2000 and the enrollment has reached to a current enrollment exceeding 1200 students Typical class sizes in the ME program gradually increased from 10-20 students in 1980’s, to 20-40 students in 1990s, 30-60 students up to 2002, and finally to 40-130 students beyond 2002 The author has observed that 95-100 % students attend classes when class size is less than 30 students Attendance decreases with increasing class size Attendance also decrease if it is not a factor on the final grade In very large classes attendance can be as low as 60% in a given day, even if it has a weight of 10% on the final grade Several studies have been conducted by the author and his colleagues (2-14) to examine the factors influencing student success and experimenting with new teaching techniques to enhance student academic success One study showed2 that by implementing a mandatory attendance policy student success can be improved somewhat, but not significantly if students attend classes, but not their homework assignments In fall 2000, the ME program added one hour of recitation sessions per week to some of the program’s gateway courses (Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamic-I) with the goal of increasing student success The enrollment limit in recitation sessions were set at 25 students In the recitation sessions, the instructor or the teaching assistant did not teach new materials but answered to questions that students had difficulty with; and solved additional example problems An examination of the influence of recitation sessions did not show significant improvement on class passing rate3 (A, B, and C grades), even if the attendance was mandatory However, study showed a shift of grades from B to A, C to B, and modest shift from D to C The study indicated that recitation sessions were helpful to students who actively participate in the recitation sessions and were completing their homework assignments Table shows4 the increase in percentage of grades of A and B in several ME courses between 2000 and 2006 after the recitation hours were added in 2000 Table Increase in grades of A and B in several Required ME courses after the addition of recitation sessions Course Engineering Analysis-I Engineering Analysis-II Dynamics Thermodynamics-I Solid Mechanics Fall 94-Summer 2000 52.5 43.2 25.9 33.1 25.9 2000-2006 59.0 45.1 27.0 37.5 36.5 Increase 6.5 1.9 1.1 4.4 10.6 The experimentation with the mandatory recitation session in the first course in thermodynamics started in fall 2000 and continued until summer 2006 Figure provides a comparison of grade distributions for periods prior to the requirement of mandatory recitation sessions with those during the implementation of mandatory recitation sessions Only those sections of the first course in Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education thermodynamics taught by two tenured faculty members are included in the figure for the following reasons The DFW rates for the sections taught by theses instructors were very similar In additions, these two instructors were the only two who taught the course prior to and during the implementation of mandatory recitation sessions The data in Fig shows an improvement in student passing rate during the fall 2000 through summer 2006 period suggesting that the mandatory recitation had positive influence on student success Figure shows a % increase in passing rate when the mandatory recitation session was in effect The table shows that the major change was the increase in the percentage of grade C (from 21% to 29%) Fig Grade distribution for the first course in thermodynamics: no recitation (Fall 1994 through Summer 2000), with recitation (fall 2000-summer 2006) Access to textbook solution manuals have adverse influence on students’ educational learning experience Our student survey in 20115 indicated that almost all students had access to the digital textbook solution manuals Until early 2000s, the weight of homework assignments on the final grades was as high as 30% With the knowledge of student access to the solution manual the weight of homework assignments on the final grades was reduce 0-10% With lower weight, less students attempt homework assignments In an attempt to resolve this problem, we started to create our own problems and assign them to students as additional assignments5.6 Initially, this approach seemed to be a helpful solution to force students to solve homework assignments on their own However, this solution did not last long Now there are a number of on-line homework help resources, such as Chegg and Course Hero7,8, are available For a subscription cost, students can submit any engineering problem statement on line to one of these on-line homework companies and someone in other side of world provides the solution to the student within 24 hours To address this Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education problem, we have increased the frequency of exams given in our course and experimented with other teaching techniques to engage students in class One effort was to experiment with the Flipped classroom concept9 Students were given reading assignments and lecture slides or video tape of lectures from previous semester were provided to students in advance; and students were asked to review them before attending lectures The idea was to use most of the class time for students solve problems Unfortunately, this scheme was not very fruitful, since most students attended class unprepared and the instructor had to use most of class time to lecture on assigned materials We have been using adaptive questions and electronic pooling devices, such as I-clicker to engage students and gage their understanding of the concepts covered in the lecture10,11,12 Based on experience, it is concluded that no instructor effort is effective in student success, unless students are willing to put enough time and effort in learning the technical subjects This can be accomplished only if students learn how to approach problem solution on their own This can be only achieved if students attempt solving homework assignments without looking at solution manuals or using the online homework help resources Attending class will be helpful for students to learn how they can solve homework problems on their own Instructor-Initiated Drop Policy  In 2016 the university established a new Instructor-initiated Drop policy The new policy has specific guidelines for those instructors who want to adopt and enforce this policy The InstructorInitiated Drop allows an instructor to drop a student from the instructor’s course if the student exceeds the noted attendance and/or missed assignment policy outlined in the course syllabus15 An instructor may voluntarily adopt and use the policy only through the last day that a student may drop themselves during long semesters (approximately the first 10 weeks of the semester) The policy guidelines state that if an instructor chooses to implement drops, the instructor must:  Inform students on the course syllabus that they will be dropped for exceeding the unexcused absence or missed assignment limit  Specify in the syllabus the exact number of unexcused absences and/or missed assignments that will result in a drop  The University officially excused absences (include religious holiday, students competing in official athletics events, documented illness, etc.) cannot be counted towards the number of absences limit  Take disability accommodations directly related to attendance and/or turning in assignments into account as noted in an official letter from Student Disability Services and attempt to engage in an interactive process with the student before they initiate a drop  Take and record regular attendance  Specify in the syllabus the method of taking and recording attendance and inform the student it is their responsibility to document their attendance using the specified method  Send at least one warning to the student using the official notification process in ASAP (Automated Student Access Program) if the student is approaching the absence or missed assignment limit Implement drops consistently for any student who exceeds the limit In other words, all students in the class must be treated equally, since discrimination or differential treatment is a condition for upholding a student grade grievance Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education Adoption of Instructor-Initiated Drop Policy and the Results The new instructor-initiated drop policy was adopted first in fall 2018 and was implement in three different courses offered in three consecutive long semesters The three courses were Thermodynamics-II in fall 2018, Thermodynamics-I in spring 2019, and Heat Transfer-in fall 2019 The drop policy guidelines were specifically listed in the course syllabus of each course For example, the course syllabus for the Heat Transfer course offered in fall 2019 listed the following statements: This course uses instructor-initiated drops for students who exceed the absence or missed assignment limit Students will be dropped when either the attendance or the homework assignment limits are exceeded The limit for each category is listed below:  Being absent four (4) times Arriving minutes after the start of class or leaving before the end of class will be considered being absent Attendance will be recorded through I-Clicker If you forget to bring your I-Clicker to class, you must notify the instructor at the start of class to be counted as present (this will be allowed only twice during the semester)  Missing three (3) assignment sets (include Wiley Plus Homework sets, other assignment sets, and take-home exams) Attempting less than 75% of problems in each problem set will be considered missed assignment in this policy The Instructor-Initiated Drop Policy is in effect through the last day that a student may drop themselves and receive automatic grade of W (October 28, 2019) Students will receive one courtesy warning when approaching the absence or missed assignment limit Notification will be sent via ASAP to the student’s preferred email address Please Note: Instructor-Initiated Drops or course drops by students on their own may impact progression toward degree completion and result in financial consequences and obligations Students are advised to consult with appropriate university personnel to determine what areas of their enrollment may be impacted These areas include but are not limited to: funding received through financial aid, scholarships, veteran affairs or other funding sources, immigration status, employment with the university, restrictions on repeating courses including gateway courses and legislation such as the Six-Drop Policy, Three Attempts Rule and Undergraduate Credit Limitation Also note that if you are dropped from this course, you will be also dropped from all co-requisite courses InstructorInitiated Drops are enforced at the discretion of the instructor If a student no longer desires to be enrolled in the course, action must be taken by the student to drop the course via ASAP by the deadline The following examples are used to examine the effect of instructor-initiated drop policy on student success The first example compares the passing rates (combined percentage of A, B, and C grades) for students enrolled in Thermodynamics-II in three different semesters In fall 2015 two sections of Thermodynamics-II was offered by two different instructors Both sections used common course syllabus and the same grading policies Common exams were given to the students in both section outside the regularly scheduled class time Both instructors shared the responsibilities of grading the exams in both sections Each instructor graded the same problem on the exams for both sections Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education The first section having 91 students was taught by instructor A, yielded with only 38% passing rate (grades of A, B, and C) The second section had 65 students was taught by instructor B The passing rate in section was 74% The main reason for such a big difference in passing rates in two different sections was that students in section had much weaker background in thermodynamics Most students who were in section took the first course in thermodynamics with an instructor who passed almost every student16 The same two instructors taught the two sections of Thermodynamics-II offered in spring 2016 Again, both instructors used common syllabus, common exams, the same grading policies, and shared the responsibilities of grading the exam in both sections using the procedure used in previous semester The passing rate for 79 students enrolled in section was 64% and that rate for 78 students enrolled in section was 60% The instructorinitiated drop policy was not in effect in fall 2015 and spring 2016 In fall 2018 two sections of Thermodynamics was offered Instructor B taught both sections of the course and adopted and implemented the instructor-initiated drop policy for the first time Common course syllabus and grading policy were employed for both sections Similar, but different exams were given to students in both sections Section had an enrollment of 83 students and 44 students were enrolled in section During the semester nine (9) drop warning were issued to students in section and four (4) were issued to students in section No student was dropped from either section The passing rates for students enrolled in section was 76% and it was 84% for those enrolled in section Table shows the comparison of passing rates for Thermodynamics-II offered in three different semesters It displays improved passing raters after the instructor-initiated drop policy implemented Table Passing rate comparison of two sections of Thermodynamics-II course offered in three different semesters Semester Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2018 Section 2 Instructor A B A B A A Enrollment 91 65 79 78 83 44 Passing rate 38% 74% 64% 60% 76% 84% The second example compares the passing rates for a section of Thermodynamics-I course when the instructor-initiated drop policy was implemented with those which the policy was not employed Between 1994 and spring of 2017, 66 sections of Thermodynamics were offered taught by 12 different instructors The passing rate ranges for sections taught by tenured and tenure track (TT) instructors were in the range of 36-95%, with an average passing rate of 55% The passing range for sections taught by non-tenure tractor faculty was in the range of 60-90%, with an average passing rate of 67% In spring 2018 two sections of Thermodynamics-II was offered by two different instructors Both sections used common course syllabus and the same grading policies Different exams were given to students in each section at regularly scheduled class time, but the exams were written by a third faculty number who was not teaching either section The faculty member who was writing the exams made sure that the exams given to each section are at a similar difficulty level Both instructors shared the responsibilities of grading the exams in both sections Each instructor Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education graded the same problem on the exams for both sections The first section having 90 students was taught by instructor C, yielded a 66% passing rate (grades of A, B, and C) The second section had 47 students and was taught by instructor B The passing rate in section was 55% In spring 2018 neither section employed the instructor-initiated drop policy The same two instructors taught the two sections of Thermodynamics-I offered in spring 2019 Both instructors used the same common syllabus and the same grading policy Different exams were given in each section at their regularly scheduled class time Exams for each section was written by both instructor to ensure that they are at the same difficulty level Again both instructors shared the responsibilities of grading the exams in both sections Each instructor graded the same problem on the exams for both sections The main difference between the two sections of course was that the instructor B adopted and implemented the instructor-initiated drop policy in his course, but instructor C did not The first section had 89 students and was taught by instructor C The passing rate in section was 48% passing rate The second section had 52 students and was taught by instructor B The passing rate in section was 58% During the semester 12 drop warning were issued to students enrolled in section and one student was dropped by the instructor for reaching the attendance limit Table shows the comparison of passing rates for Thermodynamics-I offered in different semesters It displays improved slight improvement in passing rate for the section that implemented after the instructorinitiated drop policy Table Passing rate comparison of two sections of Thermodynamics-I course offered in two different semesters Semester(s) Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Section 2 Instructor (s) C B C A Enrollment 90 47 89 52 Passing rate 66% 55% 48% 58% Figure shows the grade distributions in two sections of Thermodynamics-I course taught by two different instructors in spring 2018 and spring 2019 Instructor-initiated drop policy was implemented in section in 2019 The grade distribution for section shows slightly lower rate (3%) of DWF grades for spring 2019 that those for spring 2018 The figure also shows a much higher rate of grade A awarded to students enrolled in section of the course in spring 2019 than those awarded to students to students enrolled in section of the course in spring 2019 Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education Fig Grade distribution in two sections of Thermodynamics-I course taught by two different instructors in spring 2018 and spring 2019 Instructor-initiated drop policy was implemented in section in spring 2019 Table shows the passing rates in three sections of a Heat Transfer course taught by the instructor B A section of heat transfer course was taught in fall 2015 having an enrollment of 52 students The passing rate for this section of course was 65% Most students who failed the course did not attend most of the lectures and/or submit very few homework solution The instructor taught two sections of the same course in fall 2019 The enrolments in sections and were 68 and 40 Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education students, respectively Instructor-initiated drop policy was adopted and implemented for both sections of course in fall 2019 Common exams were given outside of regularly scheduled class periods In section 1, 27 drop warning notices were issued to students who were approaching the non-attendance or missed homework assignment limits One student was dropped by the instructor for exceeding the non-attendance limit and missing too many homework assignments In section 2, 10 drop warning notices were issued to students who were approaching the non-attendance or missed homework assignment limits No student was dropped by the instructor in this section The passing rate in section and section were 81% and 83% respectively It should be noted that 39 (36%) of students enrolled in sections and of the Heat Transfer were repeating the course for nd through 5th time; 29 were repeating for the second time, were repeating for the third time, were repeating for the fourth time and were repeating for the fifth time The result show a much improved passing rate in two sections of course taught in fall 2019 Some of the improvement can be attributed to the implementation of instructor-initiated drop policy Table Passing rates comparison in sections of Heat Transfer course taught by the same instructor Semester(s) Fall 2015 ( No instructor drop policy) Fall 2019 (implementation of drop policy) Section 1 Instructor B B B Enrollment 52 67 40 Passing rate 65 81 83 Figure shows the grade distribution in three sections of Heat Transfer course taught by instructor B in fall 2015 and fall 2019 Instructor-initiated drop policy was implemented in both sections in fall 2019 Fig Grade distribution in sections of Heat Transfer course taught by instructor B in fall 2015 and fall 2019 Instructor-initiated drop policy was implemented in both sections in fall 2019 Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education Summary and Conclusions An instructor initiated drop policy was experimented in five sections of courses taught by the same instructor from fall 2018 through fall 2019 The University requires that the instructors who adopts the this policy must first caution those students who are approaching the unexcused number of absences or number of missed assignments limit, before dropping them A full description of the Instructor Initiated drop policy was described in this paper The results of the enforcement of policy in three different courses and five different sections taught from fall 2018 through fall 2019 semesters showed that student attendance increased, students’ attempts in solving homework assignments was improved’ and the passing rates were increased The shortcoming of the new policy is that the enforcement is not allowed for the entire semester Therefore, some students start missing classes, or not attempt to solve homework problems after the deadline for dropping students Hence, students’ exam performance suffers after the enforcement deadline References 10 11 12 13 https://www.utsa.edu/hop/chapter5/5-9.html Karimi, A., 2001, “A Correlation of Class Attendance to Student Success,” Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Gulf-Southwest Section of ASEE, March 28-30, 2001, College Station, Texas Karimi, A., 2002, “Does Problem Solving Recitation Session Improve Student Retention and Success?,” ASEE 2002-2793, Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, June 16-19, 2002, Montréal, Quebec Canada Karimi, A., 2006, “Examples of Academic Support Systems to Improve Student Success,” IMECE2006-15348, Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 5-10, 2006, Chicago, Illinois Karimi, A and Manteufel, R.,2001, “Influence of Students Access to Solution Manual on Grades,” ASEEGSW-T1B-4, Proceedings of the 2011 ASEE-GSW section Annual Conference, March 9-11, Houston, Texas Karimi A and Manteufel R., 2018, “Alternatives to Textbook Homework Assignment,” Proceedings of the 2018- ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ID #: 23651, June 24-27, 2018, Salt Lake City, UT https://www.chegg.com/study/qa?c_id=sem&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=tb-brandchegg_exact&utm_content=chegg&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkOmok4mO5wIVVP_jBx1qmwfWEAAYASAEEgJY8 _D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds https://www.coursehero.com/tutors/homeworkhelp/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2Kia2omO5wIVUf7jBx1jSALOEAAYASABEgJisfD_BwE Karimi A., and Manteufel R., 2018,“An Experiment with Flipped Classroom Concept in a Thermodynamics Course,” Proceedings of the 2018- ASEE-GSW Section Conference, Paper ID number 3B.3, April 4-6, 2018, Austin, Texas Karimi A and Manteufel R., 2017, “Use of True-False or Multiple Choice Questions Student Knowledge of Fundamental Concepts in Thermal Science Courses,” Proceedings of the 2017- ASEE-GSW Section Conference, Paper ID number 110, March 12-14, 2017, Dallas, Texas Karimi A and Manteufel R., 2017, “Use of Adaptive Questions and Electronic Pooling to Promote Mastery of Fundamental Thermal Science Concepts,” Proceedings of the 2017- ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ID #: 20581, June 24-28, 2017, Columbus, OH Karimi A., Finol, and Manteufel R, 2019, “Bringing Uniformity in Assessing Student Knowledge in Two Sections of an Undergraduate Course in Thermodynamics,” ASEE-GSW Section Conference, Paper ID number 4C.3, March 10-13, 2019, Tylor, Texas Karimi, A and Manteufel, R., 2013, “Factors Influencing Student Graduation Rate,” Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE-GSW section Annual Conference,’ March 21-23, 2013, Arlington, Texas, Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education 14 Karimi, A and Simonis, J., 2016, “An Examination of the Reasons for Student Failure in Engineering Courses and Attempts to Reduce the Failure Rates,” Extended Abstract, Proceedings of the 2016- ASEE-GSW Section Conference, Paper ID number 170, March 6-8, 2016, Fort Worth, Texas 15 https://catalog.utsa.edu/policies/generalacademicregulations/registration/droppingcourses/ 16 Karimi, A., 2015 “Bringing Uniformity in Topic Coverage and Grading Fairness in Multiple Sections of an Engineering Course,” IMECE2015-53406, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Nov 13-19, 2015, Houston, TX AMIR KARIMI Amir Karimi, University of Texas, San Antonio Amir Karimi is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) He received his Ph.D degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Kentucky in 1982 His teaching and research interests are in thermal sciences He has served as the Chair of Mechanical Engineering (1987 to 1992 and September 1998 to January of 2003), College of Engineering Associate Dean of Academic Affairs (Jan 2003-April 2006), and the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies (April 2006September 2013) Dr Karimi is a Fellow of ASEE, a Fellow of ASME, senior member of AIAA, and holds membership in ASHRAE, and Sigma Xi He has served as the ASEE Campus Representative at UTSA, ASEE-GSW Section Campus Representative, and served as the Chair of ASEE Zone III (2005-07) He chaired the ASEE-GSW section during the 1996-97 academic year Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright  2020, American Society for Engineering Education