June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
22.1517.1 - 22.1517.15
The Wright State Model for Engineering Mathematics Education: Highlights from a CCLI Phase 3 Initiative, Volume 2AbstractThe inability of incoming students to advance past the traditional first-year calculus sequence is aprimary cause of attrition in engineering programs across the country. As a result, this paper willsummarize an NSF funded initiative at Wright State University to redefine the way engineeringmathematics is taught, with the goal of increasing student retention, motivation and success inengineering.The Wright State model begins with the development of a novel first-year engineeringmathematics course, EGR 101 “Introductory Mathematics for Engineering Applications.”Taught by engineering faculty, the course includes lecture, laboratory and recitation components.Using an application-oriented, hands-on approach, the course addresses only the salient mathtopics actually used in core engineering courses. These include the traditional physics,engineering mechanics, electric circuits and computer programming sequences. The EGR 101course replaces traditional math prerequisite requirements for the above core courses, so thatstudents can advance in the curriculum without first completing a traditional first-year calculussequence. The Wright State model concludes with a more just-in-time structuring of the requiredmath sequence, in concert with college and ABET requirements. The result has shifted thetraditional emphasis on math prerequisite requirements to an emphasis on engineeringmotivation for math.Since its inception in Fall of 2004, the Wright State model has had an overwhelming impact onthe retention, motivation and success of engineering students at Wright State University. As partof a CCLI Phase 3 initiative, the approach is now being piloted by more than 15 institutionsacross the country (primarily university, but also at the community college and K-12 levels).These institutions represent strategic pockets of interest in some of our nation's most STEMcritical regions, including Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, California, Maryland and Virginia.Last year's paper highlighted progress at a subset of these institutions, including the details oftheir diverse implementations and a preliminary assessment of their results. This year's paper(Volume 2) will highlight progress at several additional institutions, including at least oneinstitution not even funded under the CCLI Phase 3 award. It will also include the latest datafrom Wright State's own implementation, including its cumulative impact on first-year retention,as well as a first look at graduation rates for the initial cohorts.
Klingbeil, N. W., & Molitor, S., & Randolph, B. W., & Brown, S. A., & Olsen, R. G., & Cassady, C. R. (2011, June), The Wright State Model for Engineering Mathematics Education: Highlights from a CCLI Phase 3 Initiative, Volume 2 Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18990
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