Engineering. Dr. Callahan received her Ph.D. in Materials Science, M.S. in Metallurgy, and B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Connecticut. Her educational research interests include leadership, institutional change, engineering and STEM retention, and engineering, materials science, and mathematics education.Ms. Jocelyn B. S. Cullers, Boise State University Jocelyn B. S. Cullers is a Data Analyst at the Institute for STEM & Diversity Initiatives at Boise State University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Calculus Reform – Increasing STEM Retention and Post-Requisite Course Success While Closing the Retention Gap for Women and
some data analysis to determine what trends, if any, may apply tovarious aspects of her calculus courses. The following graphics indicate the data and results.Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively, display overviews of the total Calculus I, Differential Calculus,Math 2014 enrollments; Calculus II, Integral Calculus, Math 2024 enrollments; and Calculus III,Multivariable Calculus, Math 2073 enrollments, by semester, from spring (S) 2000 through fall(F) 2016. It can be observed that enrollments are larger for the traditionally “on-sequence”courses of Calculus I and Calculus III during the fall semesters and for Calculus II in the springsemesters. Also noted is a trend of increasing enrollments. There is a surge in the Calculus Ienrollments that
verbal (V) ability, in the middle is spatial (S) and math (M) is on the right. STEMstudents, to the right of Figure 1, have an ‘I’ shaped ability profile (i.e. M > S > V), incontrast to the ‘V’ shaped profile (i.e. M ≥ V > S) of the HSS students. Clearly, the ‘I’shaped profile, developed by high school, was a predictor of a STEM education path anddistance travelled on this path. Given that this predictor contains not just math ability butspatial ability also, STEM educators have reason to treat spatial ability in the same way asmath ability: assess incoming students for the ability and provide resources to address anyshortcomings in it. While it is now common to find math learning support centers co-existingbeside engineering schools
, since the impact of the policy changes in this preliminarystudy differed based on student group. The initial results of this study provide some insight intoinstructional policies that have a positive impact on reducing DFW proportions for Calculus I.These findings support the larger effort of addressing issues causing introductory calculus to be abarrier to success for many STEM majors.ReferencesBeichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2–39.Benson, L., Moss, W., Biggers, S., Schiff, S. D., Orr, M. K., & Ohland, M. W
mathematical abilities [2]. Therefore, students who did not have the necessarymathematical abilities to be successful in engineering courses needed help to pursue theirengineering majors and complete their engineering degrees. In order to retain and supportengineering majors, many universities have offered bridge programs in mathematics for students[3][4]. Such programs were common in the 1990’s and have increased again recently as the needhas been recognized widely. Bridge programs aimed to increase engineering students’ retentionby strengthening their mathematical competencies. There are many types of bridge programs indifferent disciplines, especially science and mathematics. Bridge mathematics programs weremore common in mathematics than science
facilitate ongoing research on retention. Ms. Bego is a registered professional mechanical engineer in New York State.Dr. Patricia A. Ralston, University of Louisville Dr. Patricia A. S. Ralston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville. She received her B.S., MEng, and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Louisville. Dr. Ralston teaches undergraduate engineering mathematics and is currently involved in educational research on the effective use of technology in engineering education, the incorpo- ration of critical thinking in undergraduate engineering education, and retention of engineering students. She leads a research group whose
of engage with ambiguous task or data. (“I’m not sure where this fits exactly, situations/stimuli as valuable but that’s okay”; “The data will never be opportunities for discovery of that which perfect.”) s/he does not yet know (“I like how open this is”). Learner may reframe ambiguous situations or stimuli but does not impose a solution or explanation prematurely. Learner considers
).7. DeLozier, S. J. & Rhodes, M. G. Flipped Classrooms: a Review of Key Ideas and Recommendations for Practice. Educ. Psychol. Rev. (2016). doi:10.1007/s10648-015- 9356-98. Freeman, S. et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 8410–8415 (2014).9. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work ? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223–231 (2004).10. Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B. & Zeytuncu, Y. E. Flipping a College Calculus Course: A Case Study. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 142–152 (2015).11. Talbert, R. in Best practices for flipping the college classroom (eds. Waldrop, J. B. & Bowdon, M. A.) 29–43 (Routledge, 2015
this course I received more frequent feedback 3.52 1.06on my progress towards course objectives.Compared to my experiences in other courses, in this course I received more opportunities to 3.88 0.99assess my own understanding and learning.Compared to other courses, the technology allowed more interaction with the instructor(s). 3.33 1.05Compared to my experiences in other courses, in this course I experienced more interaction 4.33 0.85with my fellow students.FeedbackStudents’ reaction was very diverse. Many of our students never took a flipped class, and did notexpect to be in one of them, probably because our school never had flipped class. Below wereport some of the comments after the first
and organize and facilitate ongoing research on retention. Ms. Bego is a registered professional mechanical engineer in New York State.Mr. Il Young Barrow, University of Louisville IL Young Barrow is the QEP specialist for assessment at the University of Louisville. He specializes in knowledge around national assessment instruments (e.g. NSSE, CIRP, CAAP), assessment of student learning outcomes, retention studies, and various data analyses related to student success. IL also has wide-ranging experiences in undergraduate teaching, academic advising, and graduate admissions and student services.Dr. Patricia A. Ralston, University of Louisville Dr. Patricia A. S. Ralston is Professor and Chair of the
teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of engineering education, 95(2), 123-138.[11] Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social– emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of educational psychology, 90(3), 528.[12] Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 87-101.
), 370 - 392.4. Dubinsky, E. and McDonald M. A. (2002). APOS: A Constructivist Theory of Learning in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Research, The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level, 7 (3), 275-282.5. Piaget, J., and Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science (H. Feider, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published in 1983).6. Piaget, J., J.-B. Grize, A., Szeminska, and V. Bang (1977). Epistemology and psychology of functions (J. Castellano`s and V. Anderson: Trans.)7. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Issues in Mathematics Education, 4, 21-44.8. Tokgöz
-education-in-the-u-s-doesn-t-add- up/ 2. Booth, J.L. and Koedinger, K.R. (2008). “Key Misconceptions in Algebraic Problem Solving.” Proceedings of the 30th Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Pp. (64-70). 3. Epp, S.S. (2003). “The Role of Logic in Teaching Proof.” The Mathematical Association of America. 4. Goetting, M.M. (1995). “The College Student’s Understanding of Mathematical Proof.” University of Maryland. 5. Green, E. (2014). “Why do Americans stink at Math?” The New York Times Magazine. 6. Harel, G. and Sowder, L. (1998). “Students’ Proof Schemes: Results from Exploratory Studies.” Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III. American Mathematical Society. Pp