Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linear Programming Models: Identifying Common Errors in Engineering Students’ Work with Complex Word Problems

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In linear programming, many students find it difficult to translate a verbal description of a problem into a valid mathematical model. To better understand this, we examine the existing characteristics of college engineering students’ errors across linear programming (LP) problems. We examined textbooks to identify the types of problems typically found in introductory linear programming courses. We then developed a comprehensive set of tasks and analyzed students’ work to create a taxonomy of the errors and issues that students exhibited. From our findings, we define four categories of identified error types: (1) decision variable errors, (2) variable relationship errors, (3) notation errors, and (4) form errors. This study contributes to the research by investigating students’ work in an area of undergraduate mathematics that has not been heavily explored before. Findings suggest specific areas of focus for future work in helping students develop their understanding of linear programming models and mathematical modeling in word problems in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, J. P. (2001). Teaching mathematical modeling and the skills of representation. In A. A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (2001 Yearbook) (pp. 269–282). Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashlock, R. (2010). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to help each student learn (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cifarelli, V. V. (1993). Representation processes in mathematical problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E., & Kanim, S. E. (2005). Factors influencing the algebra “reversal error”. American Journal of Physics, 73(11), 1072–1078. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2063048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsiek, H., Paul, W., & Vahrenhold, J. (2012). Detecting and understanding students’ misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC.

  • dos Santos, S., & Brodlie, K. (2004). Gaining understanding of multivariate and multidimensional data through visualization. Computers & Graphics, 28(3), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers grades 6–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2008). Identifying important and difficult concepts in introductory computing courses using a delphi process. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 256–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, F. S., & Lieberman, G. J. (2014). Introduction to operations research (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczmarczyk, L. C., Petrick, E. R., East, J. P. & Herman, G. L. (2010). Identifying student misconceptions of programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI.

  • Kenney, R. H. (2015). Investigating a link between pre-calculus students’ uses of graphing calculators and their understanding of mathematical symbols. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H., Phang, D., An, T., Yi, J. S., Kenney, R. H., & Uhan, N. (2014). The role of visualization in breaking cognitive lock-up of mental models: Investigation through student-professor problems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(1), 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsdorf, S., & Krawec, J. (2014). Error analysis of mathematical word problem solving across students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzel, M. (1999). Understanding algebraic notation from the students’ perspective. Mathematics Teacher, 95(5), 436–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a model and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P. E., & Cendron, M. (1998). Cognitive and metacognitive abilities involved in the solution of mathematical word problems: Validation of a comprehensive model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (2010). Modeling a crucial aspect of students’ mathematical modeling. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 43–59). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panaoura, A., Gagatsis, A., & Demetriou, A. (2009). An intervention to the metacognitive performance: Self-regulation in mathematics and mathematical modeling. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics, 9, 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlow, L., & Bailyn, L. (1997). The senseless submergence of difference: Engineers, their work, and their careers. In S. R. Barley & J. E. Orr (Eds.), Between craft and science: Technical work in US settings (pp. 230–243). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J. (2010). Fail better: Toward a taxonomy of e-learning error. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 377–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rardin, R. L. (2016). Optimization in operations research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebrechts, M. M., Enright, M., Bennett, R. E., & Martin, K. (1996). Using algebra word problems to assess quantitative ability: Attributes, strategies, and errors. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 285–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokol, J. (2005). Teaching OR modeling. OR/MS Today, 32(6), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1999). Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., & Brooks, R. J. (2007). Empirical investigations of conceptual modeling and the modeling process. Paper presented at the 39th conference on Winter Simulation: 40 years! The Best Is Yet To Come, Washington, DC.

  • Weinberg, A. (2007). New perspectives on the student-professor problem. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.

  • Weinberg, A. (2009). Students’ mental models for comparison word problems. Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chaper of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Atlanta, GA.

  • Wiens, A. (2007). An investigation into careless errors made by 7th grade mathematics students (Master's thesis). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, United States. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidsummative/32. Accessed 1 October 2018.

  • Winston, W. L. (2003). Operations research: Applications and algorithms (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani, M. A. (2008). The limitations of direct sentence translation in algebraic modeling of word problems. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the Purdue Engineer of 2020 Seed Grant Program and the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1044182).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, 150 N. University St, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Rachael Kenney

  2. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

    Tuyin An

  3. Department of Industrial ICT Engineering, Dong-eui University, Busan, South Korea

    Sung-Hee Kim

  4. Mathematics Department, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, USA

    Nelson A. Uhan

  5. IT and Mobile Communications, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Suwon, South Korea

    Ji Soo Yi

  6. Treasury, Bank Negara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Aiman Shamsul

Authors
  1. Rachael Kenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuyin An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sung-Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelson A. Uhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ji Soo Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aiman Shamsul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael Kenney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kenney, R., An, T., Kim, SH. et al. Linear Programming Models: Identifying Common Errors in Engineering Students’ Work with Complex Word Problems. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 635–655 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09980-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09980-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation