Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Assessing What We Value: Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Calculus Exams and Connections to their Future in Engineering

Catherine M Kenyon 1 * ,
Lisa C Benson 1
1 Clemson University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 8, Issue SI, June 2025, pp. 403-426
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 190 DOWNLOADS: 94 Publication date: 15 Jun 2025
ABSTRACT
Assessments of learning should showcase what knowledge is valued in a field; however, the purpose and value of assessments may differ. This research explores how first-year engineering (FYE) students perceive the purpose of assessments in their Calculus I course and how those perceptions are connected to their future in engineering. This mixed methods study involves qualitative data (survey and interviews) and quantitative data (surveys) with FYE students enrolled in a Calculus I course. Surveys were distributed to all students in the course while interview participants came from a homogenous sample, determined by cluster analysis, of those students to adhere to the tenets of an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Factor analysis showed FYE students perceive the purpose of Calculus I exams in four ways: with a performance-driven purpose, a future-oriented purpose, an external purpose, or an adverse purpose. IPA revealed that connections between these perceptions of Calculus I exams and a student’s perceptions of their future in engineering were driven by the student’s perceived instrumentality of Calculus itself and the perceived instrumentality of the exams. Math test anxiety also played a role as an outcome of students’ identified future goal paths contingent on Calculus exams. These findings exemplify how students’ perceptions of the purpose of assessments differ from those reported by instructors and researchers within the literature. Being explicit in communicating the purpose of assessments is a step toward ensuring those assessments align with what is valued in a curriculum and in the professional formation of engineers.
KEYWORDS
Calculus assessment, first-year engineering, math test anxiety, future time orientation, interpretative phenomenological analysis
CITATION (APA)
Kenyon, C. M., & Benson, L. C. (2025). Assessing What We Value: Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Calculus Exams and Connections to their Future in Engineering. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 403-426. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.4118SI
REFERENCES
  1. Alexander, L., & Martray, C. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version of the mathematics anxiety rating scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 143–150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1989.12022923
  2. Ballen, C.J., Salehi, S., & Cotner, S. (2017). Exams disadvantage women in introductory biology. PLoS ONE, 12(10). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186419
  3. Bialosiewicz, S., Murphy, K., & Berry, T. (2013). Do our measures measure up? The critical role of measurement invariance. American Evaluation Association Demonstration Session.
  4. Black, P., & William, D. (2005). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(2), 20–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004.tb00047.x
  5. Black, P. (2018). Helping students to become capable learners. European Journal of Education, 53(2), 144–159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12273
  6. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
  7. Brown, G., & Hirschfeld, G. (March 2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education, 15(1), 3–17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940701876003
  8. Burn, H., & Mesa, V. (2015). The calculus I curriculum. In Bressoud, D., Mesa, V., and Rasmussen, C. (Eds.), Insights and Recommendations from the MAA National Study of College Calculus, (pp. 45–57). The Mathematical Association of America (Incorporated), Washington, D.C.
  9. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2001). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Menlo Park, CA. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/
  10. Creamer, E. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802823
  11. Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
  12. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, (pp. 209–240). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  13. Daultrey, M., & Langer, P. (1984). Development and evaluation of a measure of future time perspective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58(3), 719–725. doi: https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.58.3.719
  14. De Volder, M., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3), 566–571. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.566
  15. Ellis, J., Kelton, M.L., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). Student perceptions of pedagogy and associated persistence in calculus. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(4), 661–673. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0577-z
  16. Ferguson, R. (1986). Abstraction anxiety: A factor of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 145–150. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/749260
  17. Finfrock, R., & Klingbeil, N.W. (2023). Examining the impacts of the Wright State Model for engineering mathematics education through curricular analytics. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2023, (Paper ID: 40066), 1–15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18260/1-2--43521
  18. French, S., Dickerson, A., & Mulder, R.A. (2024). A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. Higher Education, 88, 893–918. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z
  19. Glaser, R., Linn, R., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1997). Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation’s educational progress. National Academy of Education, New York.
  20. Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. American Educational Research Association, 11(3), 255–274. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
  21. Grimes, Z.T., & Gardner, F. (2023). Conceptions of disciplinary anxiety across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) contexts: A critical and theoretical synthesis. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(SI), 21–46. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.212SI
  22. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/749455
  23. Hilpert, J., Husman, J., Stump, G., Kim, W., Chung, W., & Duggan, M. (2012). Examining students’ future time perspective: pathways to knowledge building. Japanese Psychological Research, 54(3), 229–240. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00525.x
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  25. Husman, J., Derryberry, W., Crowson, H., & Lomax, R. (2004). Instrumentality, task value, and intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 63–76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00019-5
  26. Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational Psy- chologist, 34(2), 113–125. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_4
  27. Husman, J., & Shell, D. F. (2008). Beliefs and perceptions about the future: A measurement of future time perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 166–175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.001
  28. Kenyon, C. (2023). Assessing what we value: Interactions between student perceptions of assessments in the calculus classroom and their future-oriented motivation. [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University]. Clemson Open All Dissertations.
  29. Kenyon, C., Benson, L., & Bridges, W. (2022). First-year engineering student perceptions of calculus exams and future-oriented motivation. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2022, (Paper ID: 37156), 1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--41021
  30. Kirkland, M. (1971). The effect of tests on students and schools. Review of Educational Research, 41(4), 303–350. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543041004303
  31. Kirn, A. (2014). The influences of engineering student motivation on short-term tasks and long-term goals. [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University]. Clemson Open All Dissertations.
  32. Kirn, A., & Benson, L. (2015). Engineering students’ perceptions of the future: Exploratory instrument development. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2015. (Paper ID: 11470), 1–14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18260/1-2--20398
  33. Klingbeil, N.W., & Bourne, A. (2015). The Wright State Model for engineering mathematics education: longitudinal impact on initially underprepared students. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2015, (Paper ID: 13229), 1–11. doi: http://doi.org/10.18260/p.24917
  34. Looney, J. (2018). Are student assessments fit for their purposes? European Journal of Education, 53(2), 129–132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12276
  35. Luttenberger, S., Wimmer, S., & Paechter, M. (2022). Spotlight on math anxiety. PsychologyResearch and Behavior Management, pages 311–322. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S141421
  36. Lynam, S., & Cachia, M. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the role of assessments at higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 223–234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1329928
  37. Major, J., Boone, H., Tsugawa, M., McGough, C., Kirn, A., & Benson, L. (2016). Engineering students’ perceptions of the future: Transferability and replication of time perspective classifications. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference (NARST) 2016.
  38. McArthur, J., Blackie, M., Pitterson, N., & Roswell, K. (2022). Student perspectives on assessment: connections between self and society. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 698–711. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1958748
  39. McGough, C. (2019). A mixed methods study on mid-year engineering students’ perceptions of their future possible careers. [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University]. Clemson Open All Dissertations.
  40. McGough Spence, C., Kirn, A., & Benson, L. (2022). Perceptions of future careers for middle year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(3), 595–615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20455
  41. Moran, G., & Benson, L. (2016). Effects of an intensive mathematics course on freshmen engineering students’ mathematics anxiety perceptions. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2016, (Paper ID: 15276), 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26915
  42. National Research Council (1999a). Grading the nation’s report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  43. National Research Council (1999b). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  44. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washing, DC: National Academy Press.
  45. Newton, P. (July 2007). Clarifying the purpose of educational assessment. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 149–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701478321
  46. Pellegrino, J., & Chudowsky, N. (2003). The foundations of assessment. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 1(2), 103–148. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15366359MEA0102_01
  47. Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017). Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589
  48. Puruhito, K. (2017). Connecting to the future: A revised measure of exogenous perceptions of instrumentality. [Doctoral dissertations, Arizona State University]. ASU Library Keep.
  49. Puruhito, K., Husman, J., Hilpert, J. C., Ganesh, T., & Stump, G. (2011). Increasing instrumentality without decreasing instructional time: An intervention for engineering students. 41st ASEE/IEEE 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference. F2J-1–F2J-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2011.6143091
  50. Raynor, J. O. (1978a). Future orientation in achievement motivation: A more general theory of achievement motivation. In Atkinson, J. & Raynor, J. (Eds.), Personality, Motivation, and Achievement, (pp. 71–115). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, D.C.
  51. Raynor, J.O. (1978b). Motivation and career striving. In Atkinson, J .and Raynor, J. (Eds.), Personality, Motivation, and Achievement, (pp. 199–219). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, D.C.
  52. Raynor, J. (1981). Future orientation and achievement motivation: Toward a theory of personality functioning and change. In d’Ydewalle, G. & Lens, W. (Eds.), Cognition in human motivation and learning, (pp.199–231). Leuven University Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Leuven, Belgium and Hillsdale, NJ.
  53. Rea-Dickins, P. (1997). So, why do we need relationships with stakeholders in language testing? A view from the UK. Language Testing, 14(3), 304–314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400307
  54. Richardson, F., & Suinn, R. (1972). The mathematics anxiety ratings scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 551–554. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0033456
  55. Riley, D. (2016). We assess what we value: “evidence-based” logic and the abandonment of “non-assessable” learning outcomes. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition 2016, (Paper ID: 16346), 1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27187
  56. Rounds, J., & Hendel, D. (1980). Measurement and dimensionality of mathematics anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(2), 138–149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.27.2.138
  57. Roy, J., Wilson, C., Erdiaw-Kwasie, A., & Stuppard, C. (2020). Engineering and engineering technology by the numbers 2019. American Society for Engineering Education.
  58. Sadler, D. (November 2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 387–392. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940701592097
  59. Scott, C. (March 2007). Stakeholder perceptions of test impact. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 27–49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272807
  60. SEFI Mathematics Working Group (2002). Mathematics for the European engineer: A curriculum for the twenty-first century. SEFI HQ, Brussels, Belgium.
  61. Siddiqui, K. (2013). Heuristics for sample size determination in multivariate statistical techniques. World Applied Sciences Journal, 27(2), 285–287. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.27.02.889
  62. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  63. Stuyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (August 2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099102
  64. Suinn, R., & Winston, E. (2003). The mathematics anxiety rating scale, a brief version: Psychometric data. Psychology Reports, 92(1), 167–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.167
  65. Torrance, H. (November 2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281–294. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940701591867
  66. VanCalster, K., Lens, W., & Nuttin, J. (1987). Affective attitude toward the personal future: Impact on motivation in high school boys. American Journal of Psychology, 100(1), 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1422639
  67. Winstone, N.E., & Boud, D. (2020). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 656–667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687
  68. Zaman, N., Bibi, Z., Sheikh, S.R., & Raziq, A. (2020). Manualizing factor analysis of Likert scale data. Journal of Management Sciences, 7(2), 56–67.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.