Pilot Data

Spring 2017

Below are highlights of findings from our pilot data:

RQ 1: What factors (family, course load, work obligations, and health) contribute to failure rates in CE 112, ME 101, and EE 98?

Income achievement gap, which is the disparity in academic achievement between students from high-income families and their less affluent peers is often said to be the "other achievement gap" in academic circles. The students in our pilot dataset do not seem to be impacted by this. Students who fail the 3 courses in this study are found equally in all categories of socioeconomic (high income, middle income, low income), work commitment (no work, work less than 20 hours per week, work more than 20 hours per week), as well as mother's education (less than HS, HS, some college, 2-year degree, 4-year degree, master's, doctorate, professional).  The majority of the students were enrolled in 12-13 course units in the semester and more than half were tied to work obligations each week.  Working more than 20 hours/week seems to be impacting course performance across all 3 courses.  That is, the group of students who work each week has a significantly lower average grade in the course. This is not surprising, considering the responsibilities of work often triumph the obligations of school commitments often times purely out of neccesity and family responsibilities. It was also critical to examine whether health is a factor in failure rates—the students in this dataset did not reveal that.     

RQ 2: Do prerequisite grades predict performance in CE 112, ME 101, and EE 98?

RQ 3: Does taking prerequisites at community college and SJSU influence outcome?

CE 112 (mechanics of materials), ME 101 (dynamics), and EE 98 (introduction to circuit) have prerequisites of statics, calculus III, and electricity and magnetism physics, respectively. These prerequisite courses play a vital role to ensure that students enter into the course with the appropriate knowledge and skills to further them in the engineering curriculum.  It was found in this sample data that grades in prerequisite courses seem to have low bearing in performance in the course: 29% of students who took statics at SJSU and received a C grade (C+, C, C-) failed CE 112; 25% of students who took calculus III at SJSU and received a C grade (C+, C, C-) failed ME 101; and 52% of students who took electricity and magnetism physics at SJSU and received a C grade (C+, C, C-) failed EE 98. The numbers are much lower when prerequisites are taken at community colleges.

RQ 4: What is the relationship between sense of belonging in engineering, perception of instructors, and failure rates ?

Many studies have shown that ethnic minority students may face additional challenges, such as differences in ethnic or cultural values and socialization, internalization of negative stereotypes, ethnic isolation and perceptions of racism, and/or inadequate program support. Further, due to typically small numbers of minority students and faculty in engineering programs, students may lack peers, faculty role models, and mentors. All of these elements of difference can result in students lacking a sense of belonging, which can influence confidence in completing an engineering degree. In this study, 67% of students answered that they feel a sense of belonging in engineering. This number might be improved by a number of different ways, such as cocurricular/extracurricular involvement, peer support, and faculty and department support through advising.  Sense of belonging in engineering does not relate to failure rates in the 3 courses, however closeness to professor does. All the students who failed the 3 courses noted they feel distant from the professor in the course.  Students' perception of how well prerequisite courses prepared them were found to be significantly negative.  About half of the students in EE 98 did not believe that electricity and magnetism physics taken at SJSU prepared them for the course—both in students who failed the courses and students who did not.  Also about half of the students in CE 112 did not believe that statics prepared them for the course—again both in students who failed the courses and students who did not. The number was lower for students in ME 101—between 25-40% of the students in ME 101 did not believe that statics taken at SJSU prepared them for the course. Students surveyed in this study also had negative perceptions on how well lectures and assignments in the course prepared them for exams.         

RQ 5: Are there differences in failure rates by major?

The majority of students taking CE 112 (mechanics of materials) and ME 101 (dynamics) are those majoring in civil and environmental engineering and mechanical engineering. Students from CEE seem to be more failure prone than those majoring in ME. In EE 98 (introduction to circuit) failure rates in mechanical engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, aerospace engineering, and biomedical engineering students hover between 25-41%. In terms of average grade in the course, biomedical engineering students outperformed other majors in all 3 courses.  

RQ 6: Does time elapsed between prerequisite and course taken at SJSU influence outcome?

In general, there are no statistical significant differences in average grade in the course whether students take the course immediately the next semester or 2 semesters after the required prerequisite. What is more of an interesting finding is the issue around second tryers—of those students who took the course the 2nd time around—86% of them again failed CE 112, 27% of them again failed ME 101, and 26% of them again failed CE 98.  Getting out of the failure cycle without any external and intentional intervention seems to be challenging for some although the majority of second tryers retook the course the a semester immediately after their first failed attempt.

Food for Thought:

1. How can we advice students to not work over 20 hours/week?
2. How might course coordinators revisit topics in prerequisite courses (electricity and magnetism physics and statics) and map out their importance to course materials?
3. How might faculty members be encouraged to gradually move further away from a passive lecture only approach to a more active problem solving and discussion approach?
4. How can we solve the second tryer issue? Of those students who took the course the second time around—86% of them again failed again CE 112, 27% of them again failed ME 101, and 26% of them again failed CE 98.  What factors might be causing failure the second time around?