CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Online Learning and AnalyticsMathematics Education and ProgramsStatistics Education and Methodologies

Individual Differences Related to College Students’ Course Performance in Calculus II

Open access
Hart, Sara, Daucourt, Mia, Ganley, Colleen·2017·Journal of Learning Analytics
DOI 10.18608/jla.2017.42.11
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this study, we explore student achievement in a semester-long flipped Calculus II course, combining various predictor measures related to student attitudes (math anxiety, math confidence, math interest, math importance) and cognitive skills (spatial skills, approximate number system), as well as student engagement with the online system (discussion forum interaction, time to submission of workshop assignments, quiz attempts), in predicting final grades. Data from 85 students enrolled in a flipped Calculus II course was used in dominance analysis to determine which predictors emerged as the most important for predicting final grades. Results indicated that feelings of math importance, approximate number system (ANS) ability, total amount of discussion forum posting, and time grading peer workshop submissions was the best combination of predictors of final grade, accounting for 17% of variance in a student’s final grade. The point of this work was to determine which predictors are the most important in predicting student grade, with the end goal of building a recommendation system that could be implemented to help students in this traditionally difficult class. The methods used here could be used for any class.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18608/jla.2017.42.11

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Math Interest enhances engagement.

    “since Math Interest enhances engagement [16]”

    From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    Section 1.1 says math interest may increase engagement because students are motivated to engage with material they find interesting. The claim presents that proposed relationship as a definite effect, whereas the source hedges it; no page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. 2017). Individual differences related to college students' course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11
  2. REFERENCES Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181-185. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8721.00196 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 243-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194059 · DOI
  4. Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 2, 129-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129 · DOI
  5. Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 274- 294. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000204 · DOI
  6. Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (pp. 1-57).
  7. Bonny, J. W., & Lourenco, S. F. (2013). The approximate number system and its relation to early math achievement: Evidence from the preschool years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3), 375-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.015 · DOI
  8. Buckingham Shum, S., & Deakin Crick, R. (2012). Learning dispositions and transferable competencies: Pedagogy, modelling and learning analytics. Proceedings of the 2 nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ʼ12), 29 April-2 May 2012, Vancouver, BC, Canada (pp. 92-101). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330629 · DOI
  9. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 542-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542 (2017). Individual differences related to college students' course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Byrne, B., Coventry, W. L., Olson, R. K., Wadsworth, S. J., Samuelsson, S., Petrill, S. A., Willcutt, E. G., & Corley, R. (2010). "Teacher effects" in early literacy development: Evidence from a study of twins. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 37-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017288 · DOI
  11. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 697-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.697 · DOI
  12. Chanlin, L.-J. (2012). Learning strategies in web-supported collaborative project. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(3), 319-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.703016 · DOI
  13. Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011 · DOI
  14. Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual difference in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016 · DOI
  15. Cheng, Y. L., & Mix, K. S. (2014). Spatial training improves children's mathematics ability. Journal of Cognitive Development, 15(1), 2-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725186 · DOI
  16. Choi, J. I., & Choi, J. S. (2012). The effects of learning plans and time management strategies on college students' self-regulated learning and academic achievement in e-learning. Journal of Educational Studies, 43(4), 221-244.
  17. Chu, F. W., vanMarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Early numerical foundations of young children's mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 205-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.006 · DOI
  18. Cocea, M., & Weibelzahl, S. (2009). Log file analysis for disengagement detection in e-Learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(4), 341-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-009-9065-5 · DOI
  19. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2005.00542.x · DOI
  20. de Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students' motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 218-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130 · DOI
  21. de Smedt, B., Noël, M.-P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children's mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 48-55.
  22. Evans, C., & Sabry, K. (2003). Evaluation of the interactivity of web-based learning systems: Principles and process. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 89-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1355800032000038787 · DOI
  23. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. (2017). Individual differences related to college students' course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.009 · DOI
  24. Lust, G., Vandewaetere, M., Cuelemans, E., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Tool use in a blended undergraduate course: In search of user profiles. Computers & Education, 57, 2135-2134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.010 · DOI
  25. Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 520-540.
  26. Ma, X., & Xu, J. (2004). The causal ordering of mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement: A longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 165-179. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.003 · DOI
  27. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an "early warning system" for educators: A proof of concept. Computers and Education, 54, 588-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how to guard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 404-406. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.008 · DOI
  29. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x · DOI · Paper page
  30. Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-70.
  31. Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56, 243-252. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025 · DOI
  32. Milne, J. L., Jeffrey, M., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2012). Early identification of students at risk of failing. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29 th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2012), 25-28 November 2012, Wellington, New Zealand, Volume 1.
  33. Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 221-231. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009 · DOI
  34. Niculescu, A. C., Tempelaar, D., Leppink, J., Dailey-Hebert, A., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2015). Feelings and performance in the first year at university: Learning-related emotions as predictors of achievement outcomes in mathematics and statistics. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(3), 431-462.
  35. Plake, B. S., & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 551-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448204200218 · DOI
  36. PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). (2012). Engage to excel: Producing (2017). Individual differences related to college students' course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11 one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive- report-final_2-13-12.pdf · DOI
  37. Purpura, D. J., & Logan, J. A. (2015). The nonlinear relations of approximate number system and mathematical language to early mathematics development. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1717-1724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000055 · DOI
  38. Ramos, C., & Yudko, E. (2008). "Hits" (not "discussion posts") predict student success in online courses: A double cross-validation study. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1174-1182. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.003 · DOI
  39. Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., & Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 41-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.41 · DOI
  40. Reyes, L. H., & Stanic, G. M. A. (1988). Race, Sex, Socioeconomic Status, and Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 26-43.
  41. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353- 387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Romero, C., Lopez, M.-I., Luna, J.-M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students' final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, 68, 458-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009 · DOI
  43. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  44. Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265 · DOI
  45. Shute, V. J., & Gluck, K. A. (1996). Individual differences in patterns of spontaneous differences in patterns of spontaneous online tool use. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(4), 329-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0504_2 · DOI
  46. Sorby, S., Casey, B., Veurink, N., & Dulaney, A. (2013). The role of spatial training in improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 20- 29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.010 · DOI
  47. Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Walker, C. Y., & Andrusik, K. N. (2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 258-276.
  48. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  49. Tempelaar, D. T., Niculescu, A., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2012). How achievement emotions impact students' decisions for online learning, and what precedes those emotions. (2017). Individual differences related to college students' course performance in calculus II. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.11

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hart, S., Daucourt, M., & Ganley, C.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Learning Analytics
Publisher
Society for Learning Analytics Research
Published
2017-07-05
Volume
4
Issue
2
ISSN
1929-7750 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18608/jla.2017.42.11
OpenAlex
W2726179922
Cited by
20
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Learning Analytics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1338509, 1450501)
  • U.S. Department of Education
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
calculus II, flipped classroom, student performance prediction, mathematics anxiety, student self-confidence in mathematics, student interest in mathematics, approximate number system, spatial ability, student engagement, final grades, recommender systems, university students

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