Mathematical Modeling in Engineering Design Projects

Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling book series (IPTL)

Abstract

While engineering students are required to complete a number of mathematics courses, some engineering students and practitioners believe that they do not use the mathematics that they learned from their courses in engineering projects. This study investigates engineering students’ use of mathematics through observations of two teams of students working on extensive design projects. The case studies presented in this chapter provide insights into situations when engineering students engage in modeling behavior and also explore ambiguity and precision in engineering design. These insights can inform engineering education as we help engineering students become more aware of the ways that mathematics is used in engineering. Additionally, understanding the ways that mathematics and mathematical thinking is used in professional applications can help us motivate and contextualize mathematics instruction as well as determine what should be taught to students in both college and pre-college settings.

Keywords

Engineering Education Design Project Mathematical Thinking Engineering Student Daily Schedule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was made possible in part by National Science Foundation grant SBE-0354453. This work was supported by the National Academy of Engineering’s Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education, the Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching at the University of Washington, and the Center for Design Research at Stanford University and the LIFE (Learning in Informal and Formal Environments) Center.

References

  1. ABET. (2003). Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering, Baltimore, MA: ABET, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Cardella, M. E. (2006). Engineering Mathematics: An Investigation of Students’ Mathematical Thinking from a Cognitive Engineering Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  3. Coffey, A., and Atkinson, P. (1996). Chapter 2: Concepts and coding. In Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Dick, B. (2004). “Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch, ” 2002, http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/ gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html (accessed November 24, 2004).
  5. Gainsburg, J. (2003). The Mathematical Behavior of Structural Engineers. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  6. Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graves, E. (2005). The usefulness of mathematics as seen by engineering seniors. http://www.asee.org/acPapers/code/getPaper.cfm?paperID=8067&pdf=2004141_Final.pdf
  8. Hall, R. (1999). Following mathematical practices in design-oriented work. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, and G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum. Studies in Mathematics Education Series: 10 (pp. 29–47). Philadelphia: Farmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hoyles, C., and Noss, R. (2007). The meanings of statistical variation in the context of work. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, and J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future of Mathematics Education. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. NRC. (2006). National Research Council, Committee on the Guide to Recruiting and Advancing Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in U.S. Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pearson, R. W. (1991). Why don’t most engineers use undergraduate mathematics in their professional work? Undergraduate Mathematics Education (UME) Trends, 3(4), 8.Google Scholar
  13. Stevens, R., and Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert, and M.L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking Mathematics in School: Studies of Teaching and Learning (pp. 107–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin, andY. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series: 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations