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