June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
22.1124.1 - 22.1124.10
Opening the Engineering Gateway: Can Differentiated Instruction Help Prepare Our Non-Traditional Students? There are many students who are being prevented from contributing to our national needfor innovation. It seems that while most agree that more is needed to be done at the K-12 level, notenough is being done at the postsecondary level to improve the readiness of nontraditionalstudents. Research at our institution from 1994 through 2010 on freshmen engineering cohortsindicate that the initial math course placement correlates highly with the likelihood of beingretained in engineering. Only nine (9%) of the students in the graduating classes that started inbasic arithmetic required an average of 7.38 years to graduate. It seems wasteful to turn thesebright potential candidates away especially in light of a shortfall of adequate numbers to supply theengineering pipeline to remain globally competitive. With focused intervention strategies, many ofthese students can enjoy productive academic and professional experiences. One of the strategiesbeing pursued at our institution involves creating highly interactive lower divisionMath/Engineering course sequences where the faculty work synergistically between thedisciplines of mathematics, education, psychology language arts and engineering to insure that theindividualized needs of every student are met. Advances in learning on how to integrate anddevelop these curriculum enhancements, incorporating differentiated instruction and theDimensions of Learning pedagogy into the higher education learning engineering environmentappears to be highly successful. The Dimensions of Learning instructional framework 1,2 promotesteaching and learning through an array of lower to higher level thinking skills. The sequence of pre-freshman/first year math courses was redesigned to allow students toget to Calculus I in a shorter amount of time. First, the Foundations of Mathematics (FOM) onlinecourse is a preventative measure to ensure a significant portion of incoming freshmen place abovethe basic arithmetic level. The web-based online math program has had a total of 187 participantsduring the past six summers and the results indicate that only 24% of all students who completedthe online course placed in basic arithmetic, versus 43% of students who did not participate in anysummer mathematics review. These results are very encouraging. The FOM online math studentshad a successful placement rate that was more than twice as high as the students who did notparticipate in any summer enrichment program. Secondly, the two part pre-calculus sequencewas replaced with a two part engineering sequence that features engineering performance tasks inaddition to rigorously aligned pre-calculus content. The first part (ENGR101) is strategicallytaught with differentiated instruction using learning styles and readiness to give the student anopportunity to test directly into Calculus at the end of the first semester. For students that needextra time, the second part of this sequence (ENGR102) allows for that. A pilot course usingthese teaching strategies, offered during the Fall of 2009, resulted in 58% (N=31) of the studentstesting directly into Calculus by the end of the first semester. Furthermore, the overall pass rate forboth pre-calculus sequences was 84% (N=31). When inspecting the grade distribution, the impactof the FOM online summer preparation is significant in the differentiated pre-calculus section andis also significant in the traditionally taught (MATH113) pre-calculus sections. (see Fig 2.) 50.00% 40.00% Percentage 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Comp. Pre Basic Calculus 1 Pre-Cal Cal Math FOM All 11.23% 25.67% 39.04% 24.06% NO FOM ALL 6.78% 7.95% 42.05% 43.22% Math Course PlacementFigure 1. Comparison of FOM online math placement results during the summers of 2003-2009 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% Percentage 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A B C D F ENGR101 fom 36.36% 18.18% 27.27% 18.18% 0.00% ENGR101 No fom 16.67% 25.00% 58.33% 0.00% 0.00% MATH113 FOM 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% MATH113 No FOM 21.95% 17.07% 12.20% 12.20% 36.59%Figure 2. Differentiated instruction engineering course (ENGR101) grade distribution after thefirst semester and the traditional pre-calculus math course (MATH113) grade distribution1 R.J. Marzano, D.J Pickering, D.E. Arredondo, G.J. Blackburn, R.S. Brandt, C.A. Moffett, , D.E. Paynter , Pollack,J.E., & Whisler, (1997). J.S. Dimensions of learning: Trainers manual (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.2 Pamela Leigh-Mack, Solomon Alao, Bert Davies, Erastus Njage, Yacob Astake and Craig Scott, “ImprovingRetention by Redesigning Freshmen Mathematics with the Dimensions of Learning Pedagogy, Assessment andTechnology Framework,” 2005 ASEE Annual Conference, Portland Oregon, June 12-15, 2005.
Scott, C. J., & Astatke, Y., & Ladeji-Osias, J. K., & White, C., & Curtis, M. W. (2011, June), Opening the Engineering Gateway: Can Differentiated Instruction Help Prepare Our Underserved Students? Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. https://peer.asee.org/18706
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015