1 / 62

Overview

TOCICO CONFERENCE 2007 The Theory of Constraints ( TOC) Initiative at Medgar Evers College to reduce Student Attrition – A Progress Report.

francine-richard
Download Presentation

Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TOCICO CONFERENCE 2007The Theory of Constraints (TOC) Initiative at Medgar Evers College to reduce Student Attrition – A Progress Report Presented By: Dr. Umesh P. Nagarkatte, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Dr. Darius Movasseghi, Professor and Chair, Department of Mathematics, Dr. Nancy Oley, Professor, Department of Psychology Medgar Evers College, The City University of New York (CUNY), Brooklyn NY 11225 Date: November 5, 2007

  2. Overview • Background – for new audiences • The TOC Thinking Processes Roadmap • Unique Features of the College Scene • Acceptance of Departmental Guidelines and TOC across the College • Consequences in the Department and College • Next Steps • Summary

  3. About Umesh Nagarkatte • 1976 - Ph.D. in Algebraic Number Theory, City University of New York (CUNY). • 1978 – Present. Medgar Evers College, Professor of Mathematics • 2001-2007- Federal grants amounting to $1,060,000 for addressing the problem of attrition. • Jan. 2002 – Dedicated Jonah training in TOC at the Goldratt Institute, New Haven, CT • Research Interests – Implementing TOC, Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory, Applications of Mathematics to Chemistry and Environmental Science

  4. About Darius Movasseghi • M.A. - Northwestern University • Ph.D. - University of Toledo • 1972 – Present. Medgar Evers College, Currently Professor and Chair, Department of Mathematics • Jan. 2002 – Dedicated Jonah training in TOC at the Goldratt Institute, New Haven, CT • Research interests - Analytic Function Theory, technology in teaching and research • Recipient of numerous state and five major federal grants

  5. Background - College Medgar Evers College, City University of New York (CUNY) • CUNY - one of the two state universities of NY • College - One of 20 units of CUNY • Located in Crown Heights Section of Brooklyn • Has three schools – Liberal Arts and Education, Business, Science Health and Technology • Offers two and four year programs

  6. Medgar Evers College, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY 11225

  7. UPCOMING SCIENCE BUILDING

  8. Background – Student Body • 5,500 - 54% fulltime, 98% minority, 77% women • African‑Americans: 93%, Hispanics: 4%, Native Americans: 0.1% • 55% of women students - single heads of households • Average age 28.5, ranging from 16 to 60. • 35% need competency in basic writing skills, 65% in mathematics, 52% in reading • Students have only one year to overcome their deficiencies in mathematics and English through remedial courses.

  9. Background – Previous Efforts at addressing attrition • The College and the Department have studied the problem of attrition and suggested remedies for over thirty years. • In 1998, the College Faculty Senate with college-wide faculty participation identified 24 academic and non-academic issues causing attrition and suggested one remedy for each issue and the Department to carry out the appropriate activity. They pointed out that there were many non-academic, personal issues that needed to be addressed to overcome attrition and failure. • But addressing the 24 issues without using TOC is an impossible task.

  10. Background – Previous Efforts to address attrition using TOC • In 2001, our Federal grant proposal for $300,000 was funded for training in TOC and implementation. • Hypothesis: Theory of Constraints (TOC) can address the problems with student retention in the Department of Mathematics • In January 2002, three faculty members from Department of Mathematics – Darius Movasseghi, Chair, Umesh Nagarkatte and Joshua Berenbom took the Jonah Course at AGI, New Haven, CT. • This presentation is about the progress made by the Department and the College in implementing TOC to improve retention.

  11. 2. Current Reality Tree: Is the core conflict really the core conflict? UDE UDE UDE 1. What to Change? Identifying the Problem Analysis UDE D B 3. Evaporating Cloud: What assumption(s) are we going to challenge? 1. Three-Cloud Process: What core conflict is responsible for the UDEs? A Assumption/ Injection D’ D D B Core Conflict D’ C A C B D’ C 2. To What to Change? Constructing the Solution Strategy A DE 3. How to Cause a Change? Designing the Implementation Tactics DE 5. PreRequisite Tree: In what order do we implement the T.O.s and what blocks their implementation? DE 6. Transition Trees: What actions must we take to implement the PreRequisite Tree? IO TO All TO’s implemented DE Action IO TO TO TO Obs Obs Obs Great Idea IO IO IO Obs 4. Future Reality Tree: Ensures that the starting injection will lead to all the DEs without creating negative branches. Obs Action Obs IO IO IO IO The TOC Thinking Processes Roadmap

  12. 2. Current Reality Tree: Is the core conflict really the core conflict? UDE 5 (2%) 3. Evaporating Cloud: What assumption(s) are we going to challenge? UDE 4 (3%) • Three-Cloud Process: What core • conflict is responsible for the UDEs? GAP? UDE UDE 3 (!0%) UDE 2 (15%) D B UDE 1 (20%) UDE Core Conflict A UDE D’ C UDE D B A Assumption/ Injection D’ D D’ C C B A 1. What to Change? Identifying the Problem Analysis 0. Why change? – Define system, goal, gaps, UnDesirable Effects (UDEs)

  13. Student Survey Issues (UDEs) • The instructor moves too fast for students. • The instructor knows his subject matter but cannot teach. • I am not capable of doing mathematics. • I am not prepared for course (prerequisites for class). • I don’t have time to do the homework.* • I don’t see importance/relevance of mathematics. • I am unable to attend class regularly and/or on time.* • The exams are too hard. • I have to take care of my family/personal problems. • I (some students) go blank on exams (poor test-taker). • The instructor does not care about me. • There isn’t help outside of class when I’m free.*

  14. Faculty/Instructor Issues (UDEs) • Students do not prepare for class. • Students don’t attend regularly or on time. • Students do poorly on tests. • There is not sufficient time to cover all material in the course. • Students register late for semester, and don’t start at the beginning of the semester. • Students do not have prerequisites for class. • No matter how well I teach, students aren’t learning effectively. • I receive very little satisfaction from my work.

  15. Instructor / Department Chair Issues • We feel pressure to pass students who are not adequately prepared for the next course. • Students haven’t mastered all the prerequisite topics needed for my course. Chair - • There is a lack of cooperation by some faculty to carry out departmental agenda. • Too many students fail. • There is insufficient input by some faculty to address major departmental issues. • Some faculty are apathetic.

  16. B D Have time to fulfill other obligations. Not do the homework. A Be a responsible person. D’ C Do the homework (on time). Learn the material. Evaporating Cloud # 1 Issue #5: “I don’t have time to do the homework.” Requirements/Critical Needs Prerequisites/Means/wants In order to … I must (can)… I must Common Objective In order to … Conflict! But at the same time, in order to … I must I must In order to …

  17. Evaporating Cloud # 2. Issue # 7: “I am unable to attend regularly and/or on time.” B D Fulfill obligations. Not attend regularly. A Be a responsible person. Conflict! C D’ Attend regularly. Learn the material.

  18. Evaporating Cloud # 3 Issue #12 : “There isn’t help outside of class when I’m free.” B D Understand everything on my own. Not get help A Do well in course. Conflict! D’ C Solve my difficulties as they arise. Get help.

  19. B D Have time to fulfill other obligations. Issue #5 Not do the homework. A Be a responsible person. C D’ Do the homework (on time). Learn the material. B D B D Issue #7 Fulfill obligations. Not attend regularly. A A Be a responsible person. C D’ C D’ Learn the material. Attend regularly. B D Understand everything on my own. Issue #12 Not get help. A Do well in course. C D’ Solve my difficulties as they arise. Get help. Root Cause of Students’ Issues Not do the required activities for my math class(es). Fulfill all obligations. Be successful & responsible person. Do the required activities for my math class(es). Learn the material.

  20. MEC Students’ Core Conflict D B Not do the req’d activities for my (math) class(es). Fulfill all obligations. A Be a successful & responsible person. D Do the req’d activities for my (math) class(es). C Learnthe material.

  21. B - D: D - D’: B D Not do the required activities for my math class(es). Fulfill other obligations. A Be successful & responsible person. C D’ Do the required activities for math class(es). Learn the material. C - D’: Addressing the Root Cause of Student Survey Issues The students assumptions of the system they’re operating in… • They don’t get fulfilled on their own. • I have to take time from math to do those things. • There is no one else to fulfill my other obligations. • My other obligations can’t/won’t go away. • I can’t postpone my other obligations. • I can’t fulfill other obligations & math obligations at the same time. • Focusing on mathematics distracts me from focusing on other obligations. • My working hours and math class hours conflict. • Math classes are not held at convenient times for students. • Students can’t move freely from section to section. • Classes are prof-centered, not student-centered. • We have a structured curriculum. • A structured curriculum doesn’t permit customization or doesn’t accommodate students with special needs. • I can’t reduce the time I spend on my personal obligations (or math). • I can only learn material by persevering in math. • I must do and hand in assignments to learn. • I must find the time to do the assignments.. • I must do work on time. • I must study. • I must develop study skills. • I must work - do the work to learn the material. • I must do the work outside of class to learn the material. • I have to physically be in class during set times.

  22. Addressing the Root Cause of Student Survey Issues - The starting point for a viable strategy… “The department offers programs tailored to the needs of its students.” • D to D’: • I can’t fulfill other obligations & math obligations at the same time. • Focusing on mathematics distracts me from focusing on other obligations. • My working hours and math class hours conflict. • Math classes are not held at convenient times for students. • Students can’t move freely from section to section. • Classes are prof-centered, not student-centered. • We have a structured curriculum. • A structured curriculum doesn’t permit customization or doesn’t accommodate students with special needs. • I can’t reduce the time I spend on my personal obligations (or math). B D Not do the required activities for my math class(es). Fulfill other obligations. A Be successful & responsible person. C D’ Do the required activities for math class(es). Learn the material.

  23. The Analysis Enrollment/ Growth Elusive The Goal Teaching Effectiveness Student able/ focused Academic Content Personal Distracters Weaknesses in Skills/ Knowledge

  24. Current Reality Tree (CRT) Intermediate Steps or Additional causes Faculty UDEs Student UDEs

  25. Intervention Negative Loops in CRT

  26. 3. Evaporating Cloud: What assumption(s) are we going to challenge? D B A Assumption/ Injection C D’ DE DE DE TO DE TO Great Idea 2. What to Change to? Constructing the Solution Strategy 4. Listing DEs 5. Future Reality Tree: Ensures that the starting injection will lead to all the DEs without creating negative branches.

  27. Students’ Issues Desired Effects (DEs) • The instructor moves too fast for students. • The instructor cannot teach. • Students are not capable of doing mathematics. • Students are not prepared for course (prerequisites for class). • I don’t have time to do the homework. • I don’t see importance/relevance of mathematics. • I am unable to attend class regularly and/or on time. • Students do poorly on tests. • I have to take care of my family/personal problems. • The instructor does not care about me. • There isn’t help outside of class when I’m free. • (I don’t know how to graduate from college). • My course load is too heavy (I’m forced to be full time in order to get financial aid). • I do not know how to get good grades in important courses. • I cannot drop a class without jeopardizing my financial aid. • I am forced to ask for incompletes. • Instructor moves at a comfortable pace. • Students are satisfied with the instructor’s teaching style • Students do mathematics well. • Students have all prerequisites for the course. • Students finish all homework on time. • Students feel math is relevant for their career. • Students are punctual. • Students do well on tests. • I take care of my family/personal problems. • Instructor helps me to keep up with the course. • There is adequate help when I need it. • I have sufficient knowledge/help to plan my college career. • I can handle my course load. • I get good grades in important courses. • I do not need to drop any class. • I am able to complete the course.

  28. Faculty/Instructor IssuesDesired Effects (DEs) • Students do not prepare for class. • Students don’t attend regularly or on time. • Students do poorly on tests. • There is not sufficient time to cover all material in the course. • Students register late for semester, and don’t start at the beginning of the semester. • Students do not have prerequisites for class. • There is sufficient time to cover all material in the course. • All students begin at the start of the semester. Department Chair Issues • There is a lack of cooperation by some faculty to carry out departmental agenda. • Too many students fail. • There is insufficient input by some faculty to address major departmental issues. • Some faculty are apathetic. • There is a high rate of passing.

  29. Desired Effects (DEs)Strategic Objectives (SOs) • There is sufficient time to cover all material in the course. • All students begin at the start of the semester. • There is a high rate of passing. • There are very few Incompletes. • Most students graduate on time. • Few students drop out of classes. • Student achievement is high. • Students perform well on exams. • Everyone passes. • There are absolutely no Incompletes. • Retention in the Department/Program is high.

  30. Future Reality Tree (FRT) (pages 1, 2) Existing/Interm. steps Injections Student DEs

  31. Future Reality Tree (FRT) (page 3) Strategic Objectives Student DEs

  32. Sustaining Instruction / tutoring / counseling Loops in FRT Reinforcement: Prep for tests Counseling Instruction and Tutoring Reinforcement: Writing summary of each section.

  33. Example: Negative Branch Reservations (NBRs) NBR on Entity 180: Students have realistic Schedules. - - Students drop out. Students have insufficient income. - Students motivation and stick-to-itiveness drops. The amount of student aid is reduced. Counseling and support activities (assist students) Students take longer to graduate. Students work less. Offer more required courses in summer. Many students take fewer credits per semester. Given today’s class support, students have to spend too much time struggling on their own to complete work for class. Provide $ support to students. Students have other commitments. Supplemental instruction, child care services, counselors 180 Students have realistic schedules.

  34. 3. How to Cause a Change? Designing the Implementation Tactics DE DE DE TO DE IO TO Action IO Great Idea Action 5. Future Reality Tree: Ensures that the starting injection will lead to all the DEs without creating negative branches. 6. PreRequisite Tree: In what order do we implement the T.O.s and what blocks their implementation? All TO’s implemented TO TO Obs Obs Obs IO IO IO Obs Obs 7. Project Plan Obs IO IO IO IO 8. Transition Trees: What actions must we take to implement the PreRequisite Tree?

  35. 145A (Tactical Objective) (Alternate) Tutors show up and are on time. Tutor Center doesn’t make allowances or provisions for last minute contingencies. Tutors don’t follow established policy for absenteeism. Tutors aren’t disciplined about showing up on time or being present. 145A.1 Math Department has enough qualified tutors available. 145A.3 Tutors understand their role and contribution to peers. 3. Before we can have… Math Dept does not have enough tutors available. 1. Because… 145A.2 Math Department recruits and encourages tutors. 2. We must first… Prerequisite Tree (PRT) Example #1Concerns that there are obstacles that will block us from achieving the solutions’ tactical objectives…

  36. 110 (Tactical Objective) Department provides guidelines/policies for instruction. Faculty may object to any guidelines. 110.2 Faculty committee writes the guidelines. We don’t agree on what defines the guidelines. 110.1 Have consensus on what goes into guidelines. Getting Active Collaboration on Departmental GuidelinesIdentifying what we need to get cooperation How should we think about achieving Intermediate Objective 110.1? • Should we have guidelines (especially for adjuncts)? • What guidelines/topics should we have, and what should these guidelines include? • Create committee to write guidelines • Process for writing/creating guidelines

  37. Prerequisite Tree (PRT p.1 – p.2) Tactical Objectives (TOs) Intermed. Objectives (IOs)

  38. Prerequisite Tree (PRT p.3-p.4) Tactical Objectives (TOs) Intermed. Objectives (IOs)

  39. Project Plan –(Page 1 - Department)

  40. Project Plan – Page 2(Adjuncts, Counselors, Supplemental Instruction)

  41. Project Plan – Page 3Tutors, Supplemental Instruction

  42. Dedicated Jonah Program – Jan. 2002 A salute to our facilitators - Tracy Burton-Houle, Steve Simpliciano with Darius Movasseghi, Joshua Berenbom, Umesh Nagarkatte

  43. Unique Features of the College Scene • In industry or government, a directive given by superiors is explicitly followed by subordinates. • In primary or secondary school, the Board of Education or Principal decides on new initiatives and teachers are expected to adopt them. • But at College level, no professor will change behavior or adopt new pedagogical strategies, however wonderful, by decree of the Department chair or a college administrator.

  44. Unique Features of the College Scene (contd.) • Considering union regulations and academic freedom, senior faculty do not feel obliged to accept any modifications in their normal activities and changes in the curriculum. • Any perceived activity extraneous to instruction is usually regarded as an impediment. • Thus, faculty acceptance of any new initiative is of paramount importance in a college setting.

  45. Steps to Winning Acceptance • Informally train Grant Team members who did not participate in formal training. (Spring 2002) • Introduce issues (UDEs) & findings (DEs) informally to Department Faculty (Spring 2002) • Prepare Departmental Guidelines & get Departmental consensus (Summer and Fall ’02) • Have trainer, Dean Steve Simpliciano of Goldratt Institute, make a presentation to the College President and his cabinet (May 2005)

  46. Steps to Acceptance (Contd.) • Provide Management Skills Workshop (MSW) course for other grant personnel and directors of Freshman Year Program (FYP) and Post Secondary Readiness Center (PSRC) (Dec. 2005) • Give TOC Workshop for tutors, counselors (April 2006) • Give Refresher TOC Workshop for tutors (March 2007) • Provide TOC Workshop for new FYP director and academic advisors, FYP counselors, Women’s Center counselors (April 2007) • Mount TOC Website under MEC Website for college level audiences. (www.mec.cuny.edu) (Under construction)

  47. Workshop facilitators – April 2006 Danilo Sirias, Kathy Suerken, Belinda Small

  48. Refresher Workshop for Tutors - Danilo Sirias - March 23, 2007

  49. Academic, Personal and Women’s Center Counselors Workshop April 25-27, 2007 Janice Cerveny and participants (Last hour)

  50. Consequences in the Department • Department received three federal grants worth $1,060,000 over 2001-’07 involving TOC training and implementation • Middle States Accreditation Team and casual visitors noted the vibrant environment in the Math Department where students, tutors and faculty are actively working together. • Students are eager to enter the B.S. in Mathematical Sciences Degree program. • Most faculty are abiding by Departmental Guidelines. • There is eagerness to work as a unit towards the common goal of helping students. No ‘I’ in the ‘Team’ approach. • No interpersonal conflicts that the Chair cannot resolve. • No ‘silo’ approach

More Related