Cited by 37Mathematics Education and ProgramsMathematics Education and PedagogyMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Design and Effectiveness of Modeling‐Based Mathematics in a Summer Bridge Program

Doerr, Helen M., Ärlebäck, Jonas B., Costello Staniec, Andria·2014·Journal of Engineering Education

Abstract

Background: Since students' success in their first‐semester college mathematics course is a key factor in their success in engineering, many summer bridge programs for underrepresented students focus on their preparation in mathematics. However, research on the design and efficacy of such programs is limited. We examine the design and effectiveness of a modeling‐based approach to mathematics for entering freshmen engineering students. Purpose: The study addresses two questions: Does a modeling‐based mathematics course in a bridge program positively affect students' performance in their first‐semester college mathematics course? To what extent does a sequence of modeling tasks support the development of students' concepts of average rates of change? Design/Method: This quasi‐experimental study compared two cohorts of bridge program students over six years to examine the effectiveness of a modeling‐based mathematics course on first‐semester mathematics course grades. Pre‐ and post–tests measured changes in students' concepts of average rates of change. Results: The modeling‐based mathematics course closed the previous letter grade gap between bridge program participants and non‐participants in the first mathematics course. We also found significant course grade gains for students who took the modeling‐based mathematics course compared with a previous cohort who took a traditional summer mathematics course. Conclusions: These results suggest that the modeling‐based mathematics course, with its focus on the development of engineering students' abilities to model changing phenomena, was effective in improving students' concepts of average rate of change and their first‐semester mathematics course grade.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20037

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One STEM bridge program using a previously validated pre-post concept inventory on rate of change found that students achieved significantly higher scores at the end of the bridge program.

    “One of these programs gave students a previously validated pre–post concept inventory on rate of change and found that students achieved significantly higher scores at the end of the bridge program (Doerr et al., 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doerr, H. M., Ärlebäck, J. B., & Costello Staniec, A.
Affiliations
  • Syracuse University (US)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Syracuse University
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
92-114
ISSN
  • 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-9830
OpenAlex
W1482669557
Cited by
37
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
summer bridge programs, underrepresented students, engineering students, average rate of change, mathematics course design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review