Session T1B Extended Abstract – Evaluating a Sophomore Statics and Dynamics Course to Evaluate Retention in Engineering Dr. Kristi J. Shryock, Dr. Arun Srinivasa Texas A&M University, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract - This work examines the role that a sophomorelevel statics and dynamics course has in determining retention of engineering students. One reason for this study stems from a concern that a large number of students are not persisting with engineering once they reach the second year in the curriculum. The authors initiated a study to use (1) course grades from the firstyear mathematics and physics mechanics courses to predict final grades in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics course and (2) course grades from a sophomore-level statics and dynamics course to predict retention in engineering and determine effect on graduation timeline. The authors selected a typical first semester sophomore-level statics and dynamics course at a large public institution as an established engineering science course. It is a key entering sophomore-level course directly combining first-year mathematics and physics mechanics knowledge in the curriculum of many engineering programs at Texas A&M University and across the nation. Therefore, the knowledge gained and methodologies used will translate well to other engineering programs with the potential for a large impact. The study concluded three primary lessons. First, connection of grade in a statics and dynamics course to on-track graduation in engineering is difficult to determine due to many factors at the undergraduate level affecting on-track graduation. Secondly, connection of grade in a statics and dynamics course to retention in engineering is loosely based. While grades received of A or B in statics and dynamics do show an increase in retention in engineering, the number of students leaving engineering with grades received of C, D, F, or Q in statics and dynamics is not overwhelming. Finally, connection of grade received in first-year mathematics and physics mechanics courses is not highly predictive of grade received in sophomore-level statics and dynamics courses. Index Terms – Progress to graduation, retention, statics and dynamics INTRODUCTION One reason for this study stems from a concern, as will be shown, that students are not persisting with engineering once they are in the program. Evaluation of factors possibly associated with this lack of persistence will hopefully assist administrators and even faculty with trying to determine better procedures to put into place to ensure students are adequately prepared for the program and stay engaged in the program. Studying all of the sophomore engineering courses would exceed the time and resources available for this study. Therefore, a selection of a course or courses to study was required. As will be shown, a statics and dynamics course is a key entering sophomore-level course directly combining first-year mathematics and physics mechanics knowledge in the curriculum of many engineering programs at Texas A&M University (TAMU). It is also on the critical path for the mechanics sequence in Mechanical Engineering and several other departments at TAMU. Each year approximately 1,500 students in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at TAMU enroll in some form of a statics and dynamics course whether it is a course in the departments of Mechanical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, or Civil Engineering, and statics and dynamics is a common aspect in the curriculum at many engineering programs across the nation. Therefore, the knowledge gained and methodologies used will translate well to other engineering programs with the potential for a large impact. The purpose of this study was to look at a statics and dynamics course in the sophomore year in the engineering curriculum and determine its relevance to student progression and retention in engineering. The objectives include: (1) identification of a course in the sophomore year in the curriculum on the critical path for engineering students; (2) determination of the influence of related freshman courses on the sophomore year in the curriculum; (3) evaluation of the influence of grade in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics course on retention in engineering; and (4) evaluation of the influence of the grade received in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics course on progress to degree. To achieve these objectives, this study addresses the following research questions: 1) Do the grades received in first-year mathematics and physics mechanics courses influence the final grade in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics engineering course? If so, to what extent? Mid Years Engineering Experience (MYEE) Conference T1B-1 March 22 – 24, 2015, College Station, TX Session T1B 2) Does the grade received in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics engineering course influence if a student is retained in engineering? 3) Does the grade received in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics engineering course affect on-track graduation in engineering? utilize mathematics and physics, this course is more directly tied to material covered in the freshman year and is almost considered a gateway course into other engineering courses in the curriculum. BACKGROUND RESULTS A sizable retention problem exists past the freshman year [1][2]. Freshman engineering programs have made concentrated efforts to improve first-year retention. Activities, such as restructuring the freshman year curriculum to integrate mathematics, physics, and engineering [3] and introducing freshman design projects [4]-[5] have been referred to as potential factors in helping to increase first-year retention in engineering, but the alignment of these activities to increase retention in sophomore, junior, and senior levels is not evident. During the time these extensive efforts have been incorporated, an increase in the rate of students still enrolled in engineering at TAMU after their first year has increased [6]. While there has been an increase in the six-year graduation rate during this time period as well, there is still a large difference in the rate of students still enrolled in engineering after their first year and those students graduating in engineering within six years. I. Research Question 1 The first research question examines the influence of the grade received in two first-year mathematics courses and a physics mechanics course on the final grade in a sophomorelevel statics and dynamics engineering course. When the correlations of the final grades received in any of the three first-year courses were compared to the final grade of the statics and dynamics course, it is less than strong (Table 1). Values for engineering mathematics II and physics mechanics are significant at the 99% confidence level. METHOD With the foundation in place on the importance of the tie between the expectations first-year mathematics and physics courses have on follow-on engineering courses and the fact that engineering cannot manage the problem alone, an appropriate engineering course to evaluate in this study was needed. The researchers identified a core, required, first semester, three credit hour, sophomore-level engineering science course in the mechanical engineering curriculum at TAMU, statics and dynamics. One reason this course was selected is because it is also common to many engineering majors at TAMU. In addition, while students complete several engineering courses in their sophomore-year, including statics and dynamics, materials, thermodynamics, and numerical methods, the course selected is a statics and dynamics course that resembles many courses in mechanical engineering curricula across the world because it uses material taught in the first-year mathematics and physics mechanics courses and is most directly related and closer in time being at the sophomore-level to the first-year engineering classes. In the course, students are expected to apply what they learned in their first-year mathematics and calculus-based physics mechanics courses, as well as mathematics and physics they learned in high school. The importance of this course in an engineering curriculum was conveyed by Danielson and Danielson (1992) who determined, “Success in later (sic) courses is directly correlated to success in statics.[1]” While other courses in the engineering curriculum TABLE I SPEARMAN’S RANK CORRELATION VALUES FOR KEY FIRST-YEAR COURSES VERSUS FINAL GRADE IN STATICS AND DYNAMICS COURSE Engr Math I Engr Math II Phys Mech correlation coefficient .038 .259 .348 p .484 <.0005 <.0005 n 340 344 340 II. Research Questions 2 and 3 With research questions 2 and 3, the connection between the grade received in a sophomore-level statics and dynamics course and retention in engineering, including being on track to graduation, was examined. Figure 1 illustrates the current status in spring 2013 for students from the sample that enrolled in the statics and dynamics course in fall 2010. The left hand set of bars displays whether or not the student is still pursuing a major in engineering. The right hand portion provides details on the graduation status for the student; it depicts if a student has already graduated or will graduate ontime in May 2013 versus if they have additional semesters left in their curriculum. It is important to note that a student can be delayed in their curriculum for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include failure to pass a subsequent course, decision to take fewer hours than prescribed on the degree plan, and completion of a cooperative education experience taking a student away from campus for a period of time to work. From the figure, almost 91% of students who completed the sophomore-level statics and dynamics course in fall 2010 were still currently pursuing an engineering major or had graduated with an engineering degree in spring 2013. Approximately 54% of the students in the sample had already graduated or were on-track to graduate in May 2013. Mid Years Engineering Experience (MYEE) Conference T1B-2 March 22 – 24, 2015, College Station, TX Session T1B 350 322 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 300 250 174 200 148 150 100 33 50 0 Yes No Still ENGR Yes No 322 300 250 174 200 148 78 4 No Still ENGR FIGURE 1 DATA FOR STUDENTS IN STATICS AND DYNAMICS IN FALL 2010 VS. CURRENT STATUS IN SPRING 2013 (N=355). 350 98 Yes Graduated in May 2013 in ENGR To obtain a better refinement of this data, the information was further broken down in Figure 2 and Figure 3 to detail the percentage of students that are still an engineering major based on the grade received in the statics and dynamics course and then their corresponding graduation status. Figure 2 shows a very small percentage of students leaving engineering if they received a grade of A or B in statics and dynamics with 2.2% leaving engineering in this category. The graduation rates for on-track graduation were only slightly higher for students who received an A or B in statics and dynamics as shown in Figure 2 with 55.7% of students having an on-track graduation status. 176 Yes No Graduated in May 2013 in ENGR FIGURE 3 STUDENTS STILL IN ENGINEERING GIVEN GRADE OF C OR LESS THAN C (D,F,Q) IN STATICS AND DYNAMICS. CONCLUSIONS Lesson #1: Connection of grade in statics and dynamics course to on-track graduation in engineering is difficult to determine due to many factors at the undergraduate level affecting on-track graduation. Lesson #2: Connection of grade in statics and dynamics course to retention in engineering is loosely based. While grades received of A or B in statics and dynamics do show an increase in retention in engineering, the number of students leaving engineering with grades received of C, D, F, or Q in statics and dynamics are not overwhelming. Lesson #3: Connection of grade received in first-year mathematics and physics mechanics courses is not highly predictive to grade received in sophomore-level statics and dynamics course. 150 REFERENCES 100 33 50 [1] Frair, K., Froyd, J., Rogers, G., and Watson, K. (1996). The NSF foundation coalition-past, present, and future. Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference [2] Richards, D.E., and Rogers, G.M. (1996). A new sophomore engineering curriculum-the first year experience. Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference. [3] Froyd, J., and Ohland, M. (2005). Integrated Engineering Curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 147–164. [4] Weinstein, R.D., O’Brien, J., Char, E., Yost, J., Muske, K.R., Fulmer, H., Wolf, J., and Koffke, W. (2006). A multidisciplinary, hands-on, freshman engineering team design project and competition. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5): 10231030(8). [5] Froyd, J., Li, X., Srinivasa, A., Bassichis, W., Hodge, J., and Maxwell, D.A. (2006). How do students in a project-based first-year engineering curriculum perform in a sophomore engineering mechanics course? Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. [6] Office of Institutional Studies and Planning. (2009). Retention and Graduation Report Fall 2009. Retrieved from http://www.tamu.edu/customers/oisp/student-reports/studentretention-fall-2009.pdf. 0 Yes No Still ENGR Yes No Graduated in May 2013 in ENGR FIGURE 2 STUDENTS STILL IN ENGINEERING GIVEN GRADE OF A OR B IN STATICS AND DYNAMICS. The number of students not pursuing engineering after earning a grade of C or below in statics and dynamics increases to 16.6% as shown in Figure 3. Even with the increase in percentage of students not retained in engineering, the numbers leaving engineering are still somewhat small. The graduation data is not much different for grades received of C or less than C in statics and dynamics as shown in Figure 3. Mid Years Engineering Experience (MYEE) Conference T1B-3 March 22 – 24, 2015, College Station, TX Session T1B AUTHOR INFORMATION Dr. Kristi J. Shryock, Instructional Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, [email protected] Dr. Arun Srinivasa, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, [email protected] Mid Years Engineering Experience (MYEE) Conference T1B-4 March 22 – 24, 2015, College Station, TX
© Copyright 2024