Loading…

Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement

Background A strong calculus foundation is essential to undergraduate engineering success. However, some students may be self‐selecting to begin their mathematics sequence in a lower‐level calculus course than their prior achievement and aptitude would suggest is appropriate (i.e., undermatch). Purp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2021-07, Vol.110 (3), p.594-615
Main Authors: Inkelas, Karen K., Maeng, Jennifer L., Williams, Aaron L., Jones, Jason S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3
container_end_page 615
container_issue 3
container_start_page 594
container_title Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)
container_volume 110
creator Inkelas, Karen K.
Maeng, Jennifer L.
Williams, Aaron L.
Jones, Jason S.
description Background A strong calculus foundation is essential to undergraduate engineering success. However, some students may be self‐selecting to begin their mathematics sequence in a lower‐level calculus course than their prior achievement and aptitude would suggest is appropriate (i.e., undermatch). Purpose This study examined (a) the relationship between engineering students' academic outcomes and first‐year calculus course taken, (b) the extent to which first‐year engineering students select calculus courses appropriate for their prior mathematics achievement and background, and (c) students' rationales for calculus course selection. Design/Method The study used a mixed‐methods approach consisting of quantitative t‐test, multiple regression, and classification decision tree model analyses of student records of (a) first‐year engineering students from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2689) at a highly selective public research university and (b) qualitative focus groups of 95 undergraduate engineering students in 2017–2018. Results Students who begin their math sequence in Calculus I had lower graduating grade point averages, longer time‐to‐degree, and were less likely to major in popular engineering fields than those who started in Calculus II. Of first‐year undergraduates, 18.4% undermatched their choice of calculus course. Students' rationales for choosing a particular calculus course included (a) prior achievement, (b) recommendations from others, and (c) self‐confidence. Conclusions Results suggest that undermatching the choice of first calculus course may lead to negative consequences for students' STEM pathways even at a highly selective engineering school. These results hold implications for practice, especially in terms of advising at the high school and college levels.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jee.20406
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2559399513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1304205</ericid><sourcerecordid>2559399513</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1K5EAUhQtRmFZnMQ8gFLiQWURv_aVTK2maHn8Q3MysQ6Vyy06TVNqqBO2dj-Az-iSWE3Hn6sI93z2Xcwj5xeCcAfCLDeI5Bwn5HplxlheZLgTskxmDXGdyLuAHOYxxAwAa8vmMjAvfD2sM1PWho72jo68xdGaw68Y_XNIF7ZpnrN9eXjsc1n0dKT6brvFmaHr_wbsmxCHJOzSBon9oPGJIpzQOY41-iGfUmtaO7RjptjUWu7Q8JgfOtBF_fs4j8u_P6u_yOru7v7pZLu4yK5jOs6qaO1U4pYRlUhnNTV3VmEPtOKCp0DAnuapMARWvJKKQTloxL3ihZaFMLY7I6eS7Df3jiHEoN_0YfHpZcqW00FoxkajfE2VDH2NAV25D05mwKxmUH62WqdXyf6uJPZnYFNJ-catbJkByUEm_mPSnpsXd90bl7Wo1Ob4DqeKGqQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2559399513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>Inkelas, Karen K. ; Maeng, Jennifer L. ; Williams, Aaron L. ; Jones, Jason S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Inkelas, Karen K. ; Maeng, Jennifer L. ; Williams, Aaron L. ; Jones, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><description>Background A strong calculus foundation is essential to undergraduate engineering success. However, some students may be self‐selecting to begin their mathematics sequence in a lower‐level calculus course than their prior achievement and aptitude would suggest is appropriate (i.e., undermatch). Purpose This study examined (a) the relationship between engineering students' academic outcomes and first‐year calculus course taken, (b) the extent to which first‐year engineering students select calculus courses appropriate for their prior mathematics achievement and background, and (c) students' rationales for calculus course selection. Design/Method The study used a mixed‐methods approach consisting of quantitative t‐test, multiple regression, and classification decision tree model analyses of student records of (a) first‐year engineering students from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2689) at a highly selective public research university and (b) qualitative focus groups of 95 undergraduate engineering students in 2017–2018. Results Students who begin their math sequence in Calculus I had lower graduating grade point averages, longer time‐to‐degree, and were less likely to major in popular engineering fields than those who started in Calculus II. Of first‐year undergraduates, 18.4% undermatched their choice of calculus course. Students' rationales for choosing a particular calculus course included (a) prior achievement, (b) recommendations from others, and (c) self‐confidence. Conclusions Results suggest that undermatching the choice of first calculus course may lead to negative consequences for students' STEM pathways even at a highly selective engineering school. These results hold implications for practice, especially in terms of advising at the high school and college levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-4730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-9830</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jee.20406</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; achievement ; Calculus ; calculus placement ; College Freshmen ; Colleges &amp; universities ; Decision analysis ; Decision Making ; Decision trees ; Engineering ; Engineering Education ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematics Achievement ; Mixed methods research ; Research facilities ; Self Esteem ; student experience ; Student Placement ; Students ; Technical education ; time‐to‐degree ; undermatching</subject><ispartof>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2021-07, Vol.110 (3), p.594-615</ispartof><rights>2021 American Society for Engineering Education.</rights><rights>2021 ASEE</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1458-8696</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1304205$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Inkelas, Karen K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maeng, Jennifer L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Aaron L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><title>Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement</title><title>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</title><description>Background A strong calculus foundation is essential to undergraduate engineering success. However, some students may be self‐selecting to begin their mathematics sequence in a lower‐level calculus course than their prior achievement and aptitude would suggest is appropriate (i.e., undermatch). Purpose This study examined (a) the relationship between engineering students' academic outcomes and first‐year calculus course taken, (b) the extent to which first‐year engineering students select calculus courses appropriate for their prior mathematics achievement and background, and (c) students' rationales for calculus course selection. Design/Method The study used a mixed‐methods approach consisting of quantitative t‐test, multiple regression, and classification decision tree model analyses of student records of (a) first‐year engineering students from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2689) at a highly selective public research university and (b) qualitative focus groups of 95 undergraduate engineering students in 2017–2018. Results Students who begin their math sequence in Calculus I had lower graduating grade point averages, longer time‐to‐degree, and were less likely to major in popular engineering fields than those who started in Calculus II. Of first‐year undergraduates, 18.4% undermatched their choice of calculus course. Students' rationales for choosing a particular calculus course included (a) prior achievement, (b) recommendations from others, and (c) self‐confidence. Conclusions Results suggest that undermatching the choice of first calculus course may lead to negative consequences for students' STEM pathways even at a highly selective engineering school. These results hold implications for practice, especially in terms of advising at the high school and college levels.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>achievement</subject><subject>Calculus</subject><subject>calculus placement</subject><subject>College Freshmen</subject><subject>Colleges &amp; universities</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering Education</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematics Achievement</subject><subject>Mixed methods research</subject><subject>Research facilities</subject><subject>Self Esteem</subject><subject>student experience</subject><subject>Student Placement</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Technical education</subject><subject>time‐to‐degree</subject><subject>undermatching</subject><issn>1069-4730</issn><issn>2168-9830</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1K5EAUhQtRmFZnMQ8gFLiQWURv_aVTK2maHn8Q3MysQ6Vyy06TVNqqBO2dj-Az-iSWE3Hn6sI93z2Xcwj5xeCcAfCLDeI5Bwn5HplxlheZLgTskxmDXGdyLuAHOYxxAwAa8vmMjAvfD2sM1PWho72jo68xdGaw68Y_XNIF7ZpnrN9eXjsc1n0dKT6brvFmaHr_wbsmxCHJOzSBon9oPGJIpzQOY41-iGfUmtaO7RjptjUWu7Q8JgfOtBF_fs4j8u_P6u_yOru7v7pZLu4yK5jOs6qaO1U4pYRlUhnNTV3VmEPtOKCp0DAnuapMARWvJKKQTloxL3ihZaFMLY7I6eS7Df3jiHEoN_0YfHpZcqW00FoxkajfE2VDH2NAV25D05mwKxmUH62WqdXyf6uJPZnYFNJ-catbJkByUEm_mPSnpsXd90bl7Wo1Ob4DqeKGqQ</recordid><startdate>202107</startdate><enddate>202107</enddate><creator>Inkelas, Karen K.</creator><creator>Maeng, Jennifer L.</creator><creator>Williams, Aaron L.</creator><creator>Jones, Jason S.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1458-8696</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202107</creationdate><title>Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement</title><author>Inkelas, Karen K. ; Maeng, Jennifer L. ; Williams, Aaron L. ; Jones, Jason S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>achievement</topic><topic>Calculus</topic><topic>calculus placement</topic><topic>College Freshmen</topic><topic>Colleges &amp; universities</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering Education</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematics Achievement</topic><topic>Mixed methods research</topic><topic>Research facilities</topic><topic>Self Esteem</topic><topic>student experience</topic><topic>Student Placement</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Technical education</topic><topic>time‐to‐degree</topic><topic>undermatching</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Inkelas, Karen K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maeng, Jennifer L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Aaron L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Inkelas, Karen K.</au><au>Maeng, Jennifer L.</au><au>Williams, Aaron L.</au><au>Jones, Jason S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1304205</ericid><atitle>Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement</atitle><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><date>2021-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>110</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>594</spage><epage>615</epage><pages>594-615</pages><issn>1069-4730</issn><eissn>2168-9830</eissn><abstract>Background A strong calculus foundation is essential to undergraduate engineering success. However, some students may be self‐selecting to begin their mathematics sequence in a lower‐level calculus course than their prior achievement and aptitude would suggest is appropriate (i.e., undermatch). Purpose This study examined (a) the relationship between engineering students' academic outcomes and first‐year calculus course taken, (b) the extent to which first‐year engineering students select calculus courses appropriate for their prior mathematics achievement and background, and (c) students' rationales for calculus course selection. Design/Method The study used a mixed‐methods approach consisting of quantitative t‐test, multiple regression, and classification decision tree model analyses of student records of (a) first‐year engineering students from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2689) at a highly selective public research university and (b) qualitative focus groups of 95 undergraduate engineering students in 2017–2018. Results Students who begin their math sequence in Calculus I had lower graduating grade point averages, longer time‐to‐degree, and were less likely to major in popular engineering fields than those who started in Calculus II. Of first‐year undergraduates, 18.4% undermatched their choice of calculus course. Students' rationales for choosing a particular calculus course included (a) prior achievement, (b) recommendations from others, and (c) self‐confidence. Conclusions Results suggest that undermatching the choice of first calculus course may lead to negative consequences for students' STEM pathways even at a highly selective engineering school. These results hold implications for practice, especially in terms of advising at the high school and college levels.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/jee.20406</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1458-8696</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1069-4730
ispartof Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2021-07, Vol.110 (3), p.594-615
issn 1069-4730
2168-9830
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2559399513
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; ERIC
subjects Academic Achievement
achievement
Calculus
calculus placement
College Freshmen
Colleges & universities
Decision analysis
Decision Making
Decision trees
Engineering
Engineering Education
Mathematical analysis
Mathematics Achievement
Mixed methods research
Research facilities
Self Esteem
student experience
Student Placement
Students
Technical education
time‐to‐degree
undermatching
title Another form of undermatching? A mixed‐methods examination of first‐year engineering students' calculus placement
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T05%3A08%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Another%20form%20of%20undermatching?%20A%20mixed%E2%80%90methods%20examination%20of%20first%E2%80%90year%20engineering%20students'%20calculus%20placement&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20engineering%20education%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Inkelas,%20Karen%20K.&rft.date=2021-07&rft.volume=110&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=594&rft.epage=615&rft.pages=594-615&rft.issn=1069-4730&rft.eissn=2168-9830&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jee.20406&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2559399513%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3196-bb7f58f553c145a92adbde60df20eabea1f425ba80b2b4ee34f4c378289485ad3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2559399513&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1304205&rfr_iscdi=true