The effect of additional class contact time on student performance in statics is investigated. Comparisons are made between the final exam grades and final course grades of at-risk students placed on two versions of the same statics course. A standard version of the statics course meets for three hours per week over the course of a 15-week semester, while a second version meets for four hours per week. During the 11-year timeframe covered by this study, the four-hour statics course has been populated by students identified as ‘at risk’ using an informal screening procedure. For comparison purposes, using the same enrollment data, a second group of at-risk students was identified from within the standard three-hour course using a more formal screening procedure based on logistic regression. A comparison between the two groups shows that the extra contact hour had a minor, statistically insignificant effect on final exam and final course grades.
TintoV., ‘Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence’, J. Higher Education, 68(6) (1997), 599–623.
2.
Board of Engineering Education, National Research Council, Improving Retention in Undergraduate Engineering Education. Issues in Engineering Education: A Bulletin Addressing Culture Change in Engineering Education, 82(1) (1992).
3.
FelderR. M.ForrestK. D.Baker-WardL.DietzE. J.MohrP. H., ‘A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. I. Success and failure in the introductory course’, J. Enging. Educ., 82(1) (1993), 15–21.
4.
FelderR. M.MohrP. H.DietzE. J.Baker-WardL., ‘A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. II. Differences between students from rural and urban backgrounds’, J. Enging. Educ., 83(3) (1994), 209–217.
5.
FelderR. M.FelderG. N.MauneyM.HamrinC. E.JrDietzE. J., ‘A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes’, J. Enging. Educ., 84(2) (1995), 151–174.
6.
FelderR. M., ‘A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. IV. Instructional methods and student responses to them’, J. Enging. Educ., 84(4) (1995), 361–367.
7.
FelderR. M., ‘A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparison with traditionally taught students’, J. Enging. Educ., 87(4) (1998), 469–480.
FrenchB. F.ImmekusJ. C.OakesW. C., ‘An examination of indicators of engineering students' success and persistence’, J. Enging. Educ., 94(4) (2005), 419–25.
10.
ZhangG.AndersonT. J.OhlandM. W.ThorndykeB. R., ‘Identifying factors influencing engineering student graduation: A longitudinal and cross-institutional study’, J. Enging. Educ., 93(4) (2004), 313–320.
11.
TakahiraS.GoodingsD. J.ByrnesJ. P., ‘Retention and performance of male and female engineering students: An examination of academic and environmental variables’, J.f Enging. Educ., 87(3), 297–304.
12.
GoldfinchT.CarewA.McCarthyT., ‘Improving learning in engineering mechanics: The significance of understanding’, Proc. 17th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (2008), Yeppoon, Australia.
13.
AronsA. B.KarplusR., ‘Implications of accumulating data on levels of intellectual development’, Am. J. Physics, 44 (1976), 396.
14.
PrinceM., ‘Does active learning work? A review of the research’, J. Enging. Educ., 93(3) (2004), 223.
FagenA. P.CrouchC. H.MazurE., ‘Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms’, The Physics Teacher, 40 (2002), 206–209.
17.
HeissererD. L.ParetteP., ‘Advising at-risk students in college and university settings’, College Student Journal, 36(1) (2002), 69–83.
18.
ArendaleD. R., ‘Understanding the supplemental instruction model’, in MartinD. C.ArendaleD. R. (eds), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 60, Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1994).
19.
BloomB. S., ‘The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring’, Educational Researcher, 13(6) (1984), 4–16.
20.
HendriksenS. I.YangL.LoveB.HallM. C., ‘Assessing academic support: The effects of tutoring on student learning outcomes’, J. College Reading and Learning, 35(2) (2005), 56–65.
21.
HodgesR.WhiteW. G.Jr, ‘Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction’, J. Developmental Education, 24(3) (2001), 2–10.
22.
FallonDavid M., ‘An analysis of academic assistance programs on at-risk students at the United States Naval Academy’ (masters dissertation), Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA, 2005.
23.
ColliverJ., ‘Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula’, Academic Medicine, 75 (2000), 259–266.
24.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E., ‘Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching’, Educational Psychologist, 41 (2006), 75–86.
25.
GolubE., ‘An experiment on the learning effectiveness of lectures and recitations’, J. Enging. Educ., 62(8) (1972), 928.
26.
ArumR.RoksaJ., Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2011).
27.
WebsterT. J.DeeK. C., ‘Supplemental instruction integrated into an introductory engineering course’, J. Enging. Educ., 87(4) (1998), 377–383.
28.
EtterE. R.BurmeisterS. L.EdlerR. J., ‘Improving student performance and retention via supplemental instruction’, J. Accounting Education, 18(4) (2000), 355–368.
29.
HodgesR.WhiteW., ‘Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction’, J. Developmental Education, 25(3) (2001), 2–10.
30.
BlancR. A.DeBuhrL. E.MartinD. C., ‘Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition’, J. Higher Education, 54 (1983), 80–90.
