Advertisement

Mathematical Maturity for Engineering Students

  • Brian FaulknerEmail author
  • Katherine Earl
  • Geoffrey Herman
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Facing increased pressure to improve retention and graduation rates, engineering departments are increasingly scrutinizing whether they are getting their desired outcomes from core mathematics coursework. Since mathematics courses are a significant source of attrition and many engineering faculty are unhappy with students’ mathematical abilities, more engineering departments are increasingly looking at drastic options of taking students out of mathematics courses and teaching students mathematics themselves. To mitigate this trend, it may be valuable to better understand what engineering faculty hope students learn from their mathematics coursework. When engineering faculty explain why they require these high-failure prerequisites, many claim that “mathematical maturity”, not calculus skill, is the desired outcome of completing the core math sequence of courses. To better understand what engineering faculty mean by “mathematical maturity”, we conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of how 27 engineering faculty members define “mathematical maturity”. We found that these engineering faculty believed that the mathematically mature student would have strong mathematical modeling skills supported by the ability to extract meaning from symbols and the ability to use computational tools as needed. Faculty frequently lamented that students had underdeveloped epistemic beliefs that undermined their modeling skills, thinking that mathematics is unrelated to the real world and has little practical value. They attributed these dysfunctional epistemic beliefs to their perception that mathematics is too often taught without genuine physical context and realistic examples. We suggest potential avenues for reform that will allow mathematics departments to better serve their client departments in engineering and thus retain control of their courses.

Keywords

Numeracy Engineering mathematics Epistemology Epistemic beliefs Symbol sense Mathematical competency Modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant EEC 1544388. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the author’s institution.

References

  1. Ahmad, J., Appleby, J., & Edwards, P.. (2001). Engineering mathematics should be taught by engineers! In N. Gordon (Ed.), Proceedings of Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 32–40). Birmingham, Alabama: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  2. Alpers, B. (2017). The mathematical modelling competencies required for solving engineering statics assignments. In G.A. Stillman, W. Blum, & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Mathematical modelling and applications: Crossing and researching boundaries in mathematics education, 189–99. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319629674.
  3. Alpers, B., Demlova, M., Fant, C.-H., Gustafsson, T., Lawson, D., Mustoe, L., & Velichova, D. (2013). A framework for mathematics curricula in engineering education: A report of the mathematics working group. Brussels: European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).Google Scholar
  4. Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
  5. Bardini, C., & Pierce, R. (2015). Assumed mathematics knowledge: The challenge of symbols. International Journal of Innovation in Science and. Mathematics Education, 23(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Barquero, B., Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2011). 'Applicationism' as the dominant epistemology at university level. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1938–1948). Rzeszów: University of Rzeszów.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  8. Budny, D., Bjedov, G., & LeBold, W. (1997). Assessment of the impact of the freshman engineering courses. EP Innovations (Ed), Proceedings of Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference: Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change (pp. 1100–1106). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Cardella, M. (2008). Which mathematics should we teach engineering students? An empirically-grounded case for mathematical thinking. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 27(3), 150–159.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, R., Feldon, D., Merrienboer, J. V., Yates, K., & Earl, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscol (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1801–1856). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Dunn, J. W., & Barbanel, J. (2000). One model for an integrated math/physics course focusing on electricity and magnetism and related calculus topics. American Journal of Physics, 68(8), 749.Google Scholar
  12. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 368–378.Google Scholar
  13. Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), 54–64.Google Scholar
  14. Engelbrecht, J., Bergsten, C., & Kagesten, O. (2012). Conceptual and procedural approaches to mathematics in the engineering curriculum: Student conceptions and performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 138–162.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, L. (2012). Understanding calculus beyond computations: A descriptive study of the parallel meanings and expectations of teachers and users of calculus. (doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  16. Firouzian, S., Ismail, Z., Rahman, R. A., Yusof, Y. M., Kashefi, H., & Firouzian, F. (2014). Mathematical competency of engineers and engineering students. In J. Guerrero (Ed.), Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, LATICE 2014 (pp. 216–219). Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia: IEEE.Google Scholar
  17. Froyd, J. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2005). Integrated engineering curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 147–164.Google Scholar
  18. Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
  19. Gainsburg, J. (2007). The mathematical disposition of structural engineers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 477–506.Google Scholar
  20. Gainsburg, J. (2012). Developing skeptical reverence for mathematics. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  21. Ganter, S. L., & Barker, W. (2004). A collective vision: Voices of the partner disciplines. Mathematical Association of America. Washington, DC: MAA.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, J., Pyke, P., Belcheir, M., & Schrader, C. (2007). Testing our assumptions: Mathematics preparation and its role in engineering student success. ASEE Annual Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  23. Goold, E., & Devitt, F. (2014). Mathematics in engineering practice: Tacit trumps tangible. In B. Williams, J. Figueiredo, & J. Trevelyan (Eds.), Engineering practice in a global context (pp. 245–264). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2011). Beyond epistemological deficits: Dynamic explanations of engineering students’ difficulties with mathematical sense-making. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2463–2488.Google Scholar
  26. Hammer, D. (1994) Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.Google Scholar
  27. Hamilton, E. (2008). Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) as a Bridge between Engineering Education Research and Mathematics Education Research. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2), n2.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Brilleslyper, M. (2008). Model-Eliciting Activities ( MEAs ) as a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics Department of Mathematical Sciences. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2), 1–25.Google Scholar
  29. Hoit, M., & Ohland, M. (1998). The impact of a discipline-based introduction to engineering course on improving retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(1), 79–85.Google Scholar
  30. Janowski, G., Lalor, M., & Moore, H. (2008). New look at upper-level mathematics needs in engineering courses at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. ASEE Annual Conference. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, S. R., Lim, Y., & Chandler, K. R. (2016). Teaching integration: How certain instructional moves may undermine the potential conceptual value of the Riemann sum and the Riemann integral. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(6), 1075–1095.Google Scholar
  32. Klingbeil, N. W., & Bourne, A. (2014). The Wright state model for engineering mathematics education: A longitudinal study of student perception data. In 121st American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
  33. Kuo, E. (2013). More than just “plug-and-chug”: Exploring how physics students make sense with equations. (doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1997). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374.Google Scholar
  35. Langdon, D., Beede, D., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, 3(11), 1–10.Google Scholar
  36. Lesh, R., & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2–3), 157–189.Google Scholar
  37. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.Google Scholar
  38. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482.Google Scholar
  39. Moore, H. (2012). Using projects to stimulate learning in mathematics and engineering mathematics courses. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.Google Scholar
  40. Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. a., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.Google Scholar
  41. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.Google Scholar
  42. Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2011). Competencies and mathematical learning: Ideas and inspiration for the development of mathematics teaching and learning in Denmark. Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.Google Scholar
  43. O’Connor, K., Peck, F. A., Cafarella, J., Sullivan, J. F., Ennis, T. D., Myers, B. A., & Louie, B. (2015). Constructing “calculus readiness”: Struggling for legitimacy in a diversity- promoting undergraduate engineering program. ASEE Annual Conference Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  44. Raman, M. (2002). Coordinating informal and formal aspects of mathematics: Student behavior and textbook messages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(2), 135–150.Google Scholar
  45. Redish, E. F., & Smith, K. a. (2008). Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 295–307.Google Scholar
  46. Rota, G.-C. (1997). Ten lessons I wish I had learned before I started teaching differential equations. In Mathematical Association of America. Retrieved from http://www.ega-math.narod.ru/Tasks/GCRota.htm.
  47. Santos, A. G. D., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2003). Representational ability and understanding of derivative. In N.A. Pateman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Held Jointly with the 25th Conference of PME-NA (pp. 325–332). Honolulu, Hawaii: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (1st ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504.Google Scholar
  50. Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 435–443.Google Scholar
  51. Steen, L. A. (1983). Developing mathematical maturity. In A. Ralston (Ed.), The future of college mathematics (pp. 99–110). Williamstown: Springer-Verlag New York.Google Scholar
  52. Stewart, J. (2015). Calculus: Early transcendentals (8th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Pub.Google Scholar
  53. Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. San Francisco: Anker.Google Scholar
  54. Szydlik, J. E. (2000). Mathematical beliefs and conceptual understanding of the limit of a function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 258–276.Google Scholar
  55. Thornton, K., Nola, S., Garcia, R. E., Asia, M., & Olson, G. B. (2009). Computational materials science and engineering education: A survey of trends and needs. The Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 61(10), 12–17.Google Scholar
  56. Torigoe, E., & Gladding, G. (2007). Symbols: Weapons of math destruction. In L. Barbato (Ed.), Proceedings of Physics Education Research Conference 2007 (pp. 200–203). Greensboro, NC: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  57. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: A large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 348–366.Google Scholar
  58. van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. (2017). Which techno-mathematical literacies are essential for future engineers? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
  59. Van Dyken, J., Benson, L., & Gerard, P. (2015). Persistence in engineering: Does initial mathematics course matter? ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
  60. Vazquez, A. R. (2010). Mathematics in the training of engineers: An approach from two different perspectives. In Educational Interfaces between Mathematics and Industry 2010 (pp. 533–540). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  61. Zawojewski, J. S., Diefes-Dux, A. H., & Bowman, K. J. (2004). A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Modeleliciting activities. F1A-3.Google Scholar
  62. Zawojewski, J. S., Diefes-Dux, A. H., & Bowman, K. J. (2008). Models and modeling in engineering education. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rose-Hulman Institute of TechnologyTerre HauteUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations