Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

The authors have much experience in developing mathematics skills of first-year engineering students and attempting to ensure a smooth transition from secondary school to university. Concerns exist due to there being flexibility in the choice of modules needed to obtain a secondary level (A-level) mathematics qualification. This qualification is based on some core (pure maths) modules and a selection from mechanics and statistics modules. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in Queen’s University Belfast revealed that a combination of both mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice and therefore only about one quarter of this cohort had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school maths. Those students who studied the extra mechanics and who achieved top grades at school subsequently did better in two core, first-year engineering courses. However, students with a lower grade from school did not seem to gain any significant advantage in the first-year engineering courses despite having the extra mechanics background. This investigation ties in with ongoing and wider concerns with secondary level mathematics provision in the UK.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Place of PublicationCambridge, Massachusetts
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

mechanic
flexibility
mathematics
curriculum
performance
engineering
qualification
student
statistics
school
mechanical engineering
secondary school
university
experience

Keywords

  • mathematics
  • mechanics
  • curriculum
  • first-year
  • engineering
  • A-level

Cite this

Cole, J., & McCartan, C. (2013). Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance? In Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Cole, Jonathan ; McCartan, Charles. / Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance?. Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013.
@inproceedings{cc1e75dd715e47c2a4f1e6c637f3aa8c,
title = "Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance?",
abstract = "The authors have much experience in developing mathematics skills of first-year engineering students and attempting to ensure a smooth transition from secondary school to university. Concerns exist due to there being flexibility in the choice of modules needed to obtain a secondary level (A-level) mathematics qualification. This qualification is based on some core (pure maths) modules and a selection from mechanics and statistics modules. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in Queen’s University Belfast revealed that a combination of both mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice and therefore only about one quarter of this cohort had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school maths. Those students who studied the extra mechanics and who achieved top grades at school subsequently did better in two core, first-year engineering courses. However, students with a lower grade from school did not seem to gain any significant advantage in the first-year engineering courses despite having the extra mechanics background. This investigation ties in with ongoing and wider concerns with secondary level mathematics provision in the UK.",
keywords = "mathematics, mechanics, curriculum, first-year, engineering, A-level",
author = "Jonathan Cole and Charles McCartan",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
language = "English",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences",

}

Cole, J & McCartan, C 2013, Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance? in Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance? / Cole, Jonathan; McCartan, Charles.

Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance?

AU - Cole, Jonathan

AU - McCartan, Charles

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - The authors have much experience in developing mathematics skills of first-year engineering students and attempting to ensure a smooth transition from secondary school to university. Concerns exist due to there being flexibility in the choice of modules needed to obtain a secondary level (A-level) mathematics qualification. This qualification is based on some core (pure maths) modules and a selection from mechanics and statistics modules. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in Queen’s University Belfast revealed that a combination of both mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice and therefore only about one quarter of this cohort had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school maths. Those students who studied the extra mechanics and who achieved top grades at school subsequently did better in two core, first-year engineering courses. However, students with a lower grade from school did not seem to gain any significant advantage in the first-year engineering courses despite having the extra mechanics background. This investigation ties in with ongoing and wider concerns with secondary level mathematics provision in the UK.

AB - The authors have much experience in developing mathematics skills of first-year engineering students and attempting to ensure a smooth transition from secondary school to university. Concerns exist due to there being flexibility in the choice of modules needed to obtain a secondary level (A-level) mathematics qualification. This qualification is based on some core (pure maths) modules and a selection from mechanics and statistics modules. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in Queen’s University Belfast revealed that a combination of both mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice and therefore only about one quarter of this cohort had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school maths. Those students who studied the extra mechanics and who achieved top grades at school subsequently did better in two core, first-year engineering courses. However, students with a lower grade from school did not seem to gain any significant advantage in the first-year engineering courses despite having the extra mechanics background. This investigation ties in with ongoing and wider concerns with secondary level mathematics provision in the UK.

KW - mathematics

KW - mechanics

KW - curriculum

KW - first-year

KW - engineering

KW - A-level

M3 - Conference contribution

BT - Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

CY - Cambridge, Massachusetts

ER -

Cole J, McCartan C. Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance? In Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2013