This study evaluated variables associated with academic preparation and student demographics as predictors of academic achievement through participation in supplemental instruction (SI) programs for community college students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields. The findings suggest a differential impact of SI outcome for students based on gender and ethnicity. Furthermore, the study underscores the importance of evaluating the influence of academic achievement and student demographic variables when considering the development of SI programs on community college campuses.
AstinA. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact. Sociology of Education, 43, 223-254.
2.
AstinA. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BlancR. A.DeBuhrL. E.MartinD. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 80-89.
4.
BowenW. G.ChingosM. M.McPhersonM. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BowlesT.McCoyA.BatesS. (2008). The effect of supplemental instruction on timely graduation. College Student Journal, 42, 853-859.
6.
BryantA. (2000). Community college students: Recent findings and trends (ERIC Digest, ED 411 929). Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
7.
BunceD. M.HeikkimanH. (1986). The effects of an explicit problem-solving approach on mathematical chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 11-20.
8.
BurmeisterS. (1996). Supplemental instruction: An interview with Deanna Martin. Journal of Developmental Education, 20, 22-26.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
CongosD. H. (2002). How supplemental instruction stack up against Chickering’s 7 principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 19, 75-83.
11.
CongosD. H. (2003). Health checklist for supplemental instruction (SI) programs. The Learning Assistance Review, 8(2), 29-45.
12.
CongosD. H.SchoepsN. (1998). Inside supplemental instruction sessions: One model of what happens that improves grades and retention. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 15, 47-61.
13.
FayowskiV.MacMillanP. (2008). An evaluation of the supplemental instruction programme in a first year calculus course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39, 843-855.
14.
FjortoftN.BentleyR.CrawfordD.RussellJ. C. (1993). Evaluation of a supplemental instruction program at a college of pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 57, 247-251.
15.
FooteE. (1997). Community colleges: General information and resources (ERIC Digest, ED 411929). Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
16.
GattisK. W. (2000). Long-term knowledge gains due to supplemental instruction in college chemistry courses. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 33, 118-126.
17.
GattisK. W. (2002). Responding to self-selection bias in assessments of academic support programs: A motivational control study of supplemental instruction. The Learning Assistance Review, 7(2), 26-36.
18.
GeorgeY.NealeD.Van HorneV.MalcomS. (2001). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce: Recommended research priorities to enhance participation by underrepresented minorities. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
19.
GreenD. (2006). Historically underserved students: What we know, what we still need to know. New Directions for Community Colleges, 135, 21-28.
20.
HensenK. A.ShelleyM. C. (2003). The impact of supplemental instruction: Results from a large, public, Midwestern university. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 250-259.
21.
KardashC. M.WallaceM. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 199-210.
22.
KochenourE. O.JolleyD. S.KaupJ. G.PatrickD. L.RoachK. D.WenzlerL. A. (1997). Supplemental instruction: An effective component of student affairs programming. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 577-586.
23.
LazariA.SimonsK. (2003). Teaching college algebra using supplemental instruction versus traditional method. Georgia Journal of Science, 61, 192-199.
24.
LevinM. E.LevinJ. R. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 323-333.
25.
LockieN.Van LanenR. (2008). Impact of the supplemental instruction experience on SI leaders. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 2-14.
26.
LundebergM.MochS. (1995). Influence of social interaction on cognition: Connected learning in science. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 312-335.
27.
LyleK.RobinsonW. (2003). A statistical evaluation: Peer-led team learning in an organic chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 132-134.
28.
MartinD. C.ArendaleD. (1992a). Supplemental instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience.
29.
MartinD. C.ArendaleD. (1992b). Supplemental instruction in the first college year. In MartinD. C.ArendaleD. (Eds.), Supplemental instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 839) (2nd ed., pp. 11-18). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.
30.
MartinD. C.BlancR. A.ArendaleD. (1996). Supplemental instruction: Supporting the classroom experience. In HankinJ. N. (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America’s first year students (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 486) (pp. 123-133). Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.
31.
McGuireS. Y. (2006). The impact of supplemental instruction on teaching students how to learn. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(106), 3-10.
32.
MooreR.LeDeeO. (2006). Supplemental instruction and the performance of developmental education students in an introductory biology course. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(2), 9-20.
33.
MoriartyM. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 252-265.
34.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Arlington, VA: Author.
35.
National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
36.
OgdenP.ThompsonD.RussellA.SimonsC. (2003). Supplemental instruction: Short- and long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 2-6.
37.
ParkerC. (1997). Community college challenge: Recruiting and retaining minority students. Tech Directions, 56, 14-16.
38.
PeterfreundA.RathK.XenosS.BaylissF. (2008). The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from San Francisco State University. Journal of College Student Retention, 9, 487-503.
39.
PetersA.ManiD.RasathuraiS.GreeneM. (2007). The effectiveness of supplemental instruction and technology in increasing student performance in mathematics (Supplemental Instruction Update). Kansas City: The International Center for SI, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
40.
PhillippeK. (1997). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
41.
RabitoyE. (2011). Supplemental instruction in STEM-related disciplines on a community college campus: A multivariate path-analytic approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=3459302
42.
RabitoyE.HoffmanJ. L.PersonD. R. (2012). Supplemental instruction on a community college campus: The effect of demographic and environment variables on academic achievement. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 20(1), 6-16.
43.
RamirezG. M. (1997). Supplemental instruction: The long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 2-10.
44.
RathK.PeterfreundA.XenosS.BaylissF.CarnalN. (2007). Supplemental instruction in introductory biology I: Enhancing the performance and retention of underrepresented minority students. CBE Life Science Education, 6, 203-216.
45.
ShayaS. B.PettyH. R.PettyL. I. (1993). Education: A case study of supplemental instruction in biology focuses on at-risk students. Bioscience, 43, 709-711.
46.
TaylorP. C.GilmerP. J.TobinK. G. (2002). Introducing transformations. In TaylorP. C.GilmerP. J.TobinK. (Eds.), Transforming undergraduate science teaching: Social constructivist perspectives (pp. 183-186). New York, NY: Lang.
47.
TovarE.SimonM. (2006). Academic probation as a dangerous opportunity: Factors influencing diverse college students’ success. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 547-564.
48.
WebsterJ. J.HooperL. (1998). Supplemental instruction for introductory chemistry courses. Journal of Chemistry Education, 75, 328-332.
49.
WebsterT.DeeK. C. (1998). Supplemental instruction integrated into an introductory engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 377-383.
50.
WidmarG. E. (1994). Supplemental instruction: From small beginnings to a national program. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(60), 3-10.
51.
WynegarR.FensterM. (2009). Evaluation of alternative delivery systems on academic performance in college algebra. College Student Journal, 43(1), 170-174.
52.
ZaritskyJ.ToceA. (2006). Supplemental instruction at a community college: The four pillars. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 106, 23-31.
