AC 2008-1277: FRESHMAN-LEVEL MATHEMATICS IN ENGINEERING: AREVIEW OF THE LITERATURE IN ENGINEERING EDUCATIONWendy James, Oklahoma State University Wendy James is a PhD student in the College of Education at Oklahoma State University. Currently she has a fellowship promoting collaboration between the College of Education and OSU's Electrical and Computer Engineering department on an NSF funded curriculum reform project called Engineering Students for the 21st Century. She has her M.S. in Teaching, Learning, and Leadership from OSU, and her B.B.S. in Mathematics Education from Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas. She has taught math and math education classes at both the high school and
based on the developments overtime. Certainly, the use of technology in engineering and mathematics is necessary in the modernworld. Technology is integrated into everything engineers do, and engineering students mustdevelop skills with learning and using various forms of technology.For mathematics, utilizing technology leads to faster and larger quantities of calculations that canbe performed, which are clear advantages. However, it has been shown that the theoreticalmathematical ability of modern undergraduate engineering students has mostly decreased overthe decades. Part of this decline is due to the focus in classrooms on application-based teachingand using technology to perform calculations instead of allowing students to think
as teamwork, ethics,and the benefits of diversity, and capstone courses that seek to integrate work through teamprojects, many of the mathematics based courses still teach in a passive manner. Formulas arepresented to students, a few example problems are solved, and students practice by doinghomework. An assessment of student learning is to solve similar problems on an exam.However, what is generally not assessed is a student’s understanding of the very formulas thatare employed. In fact, students can perform quite well on such exams with very littleunderstanding at all.At its core, engineering is the application of mathematics and science to solve practical problemsof the human race. That is, at its core, engineering is not just problem
scaffolds.Lee Meadows, University of Alabama Birmingham Dr. Meadows is a science educator employed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His work focuses on teaching and on science education reform. He serves as the director for Alabama LASER (Leadership Assistance for Science Education Reform). Dr. Meadows is a participant in the Greater Birmingham Mathematics Partnership which focuses on improving mathematics instruction in middle school classrooms. Page 12.617.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007
., Ahlgren, A., & Schrader, C. (2009). The implementation of an online mathematics placement exam and its effects on student success in precalculus and calculus. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.[9] Alkhasawneh, R., & Hobson, R. (2010). Pre-college mathematics preparation: Does it work? In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.[10] Hampikian, J., Gardner, J., Moll, A., Pyke, P., & Schrader, C. (2006). Integrated pre-freshman engineering and precalculus mathematics. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.[11] Li
Paper ID #22515The Crux: Promoting Success in Calculus IIDr. Doug Bullock, Boise State University Doug Bullock is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Boise State University. He is currently serving as Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences. His research interests include impacts of pedagogy on STEM student success and retention.Dr. Janet Callahan, Boise State University Janet Callahan is Chair and Professor of the Micron School of Materials Science and Engineering at Boise State University. Dr. Callahan received her PhD in Materials Science, MS in Metallurgy, and BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of
students aresupposed to be learning.While some of the equipment used does take some skill to build, none of the equipment used inthese demonstrations is expensive. As the reader will see most of the equipment is made from“junk” that is lying around ones house, office, or can be borrowed from another department atyour institution.We will try to organize the demonstrations in an order that a student might encounter the topicsin a standard mathematics curriculum at an institution where engineering is taught.DemonstrationsA. The cycloid curveThe first demonstration we will consider can be used in any calculus class where parametricequations are taught. This is a classical cycloid curve. To generate the curve we use a circularpiece of wood in which
Paper ID #23231Prevalent Mathematical Pathways to Engineering in South CarolinaDr. Eliza Gallagher, Clemson University Dr. Gallagher is an Assistant Professor of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University, with joint appointments to Mathematical Sciences and Education & Human Development. Her research inter- ests include student cognition in mathematics, development of teacher identity among graduate teaching assistants, curricular reform to foster diversity and inclusion in STEM fields, and development of mathe- matical knowledge for teaching.Dr. Christy BrownDr. D. Andrew Brown, Clemson UniversityDr
what you expect to gain by taking this course.At mid-semester and again at semester’s end, the students will be re-evaluating their answersbased on their performance.ConclusionAs stated in the curriculum guidelines of both ABET and the CUPM, engineering and Page 12.598.12mathematics students must have mathematical knowledge, the ability to work effectively ingroups, and the ability to communicate effectively. These skills are necessary for the students tobe successful in the workplace. In an effort to meet these challenges, we have described in thispaper the integration of communication and teamwork into our introductory calculus courses
to asking them to evaluate an integral of a composite function with aunit step function in it, something they had not seen in the review materials. They were requiredto integrate information from topic 2 (piecewise defined function) and from topic 4 (improperintegrals), so by embedding topic two into question 4, this created a brand new problem, whichmost of them did not know how to tackle. This suggests that they needed to be given an exampleof how to creatively integrate these two topics in the review materials.The biggest gains were seen on questions 1 and 3. In these problems, they were asked to do thesame procedure they had seen in the review materials. In question 1, they were asked to graph asinusoidal signal with different amplitude
Fostering Spatial Visualization through Augmented Reality in Calculus learningAbstractWe are part of a team of educational innovation that aims to transform the teaching and learningof Calculus through the integration of digital technologies. We are looking to foster a visual andtangible learning of Mathematics. As a team of educational research we care for developingmathematical cognitive skills that are not explicit in curriculum but have been taken for granted.Most of them is basic to the understanding of mathematics and are useful in the process ofproblem solving. Spatial visualization, for example, has been taken as an innate skill in students,however, experience with teaching solids of revolution, may question whether
Year 4-Year 5-Year 6-Year Figure 3 ECS 4-, 5-, and 6-year undergraduate graduation ratesIn response, the ECS faculty at CSUF has implemented academic course intervention strategiesfor first- and second-year ECS students. This paper presents an academic intervention thatincorporates project-based learning and engineering design in a first-year calculus course, CalculusI - Differentiation.Course BackgroundCalculus I - Differentiation is the first calculus course that ECS students take. The course coversthe topics of limits, derivatives, applications and introduces definite integrals. As previouslyshown in Figure 1, the three-year average repetition
calculations [15, 24] and providing students theopportunity to explore various questions such as “what happens if...?” [5]. In this study, we investigate the effects of integrating a technology used by professionalsin an Advanced Placement (AP) Statistics course, which is designed to provide students withcollege-level work while still in high school [10]. Technologies in AP Statistics course typicallyinvolve (1) spreadsheets for analyzing data and constructing visual representations of data; (2)multimedia materials to teach, tutor, and/or test students’ statistical knowledge and skills; (3) webor computer-based tools/simulations to demonstrate and visualize statistical content; and (4)graphing calculators for computation, graphing, or
interest in pursuing in college and as a career. But there is adichotomy - mathematics is a precise science, and any problem solving engineering paradigmprovides an optimal (or near optimal) solution. Anyone with an engineering perspective learns toappreciate this and continue to combine the two skills advantageously. However, not all studentssignificantly develop this skill when learning math in their curriculum as they may not see theconnection between the theoretical concepts in the subject and the practical problems associatedwith STEM fields. This lack of a connection could negatively affect the students’ performanceand interest in STEM. Our initial focus was to develop the robot as a tool for problem solving 1-3.We also made sure that it is
difficulties are thought to arise from a lack of understanding as to what engineeringinvolves and an insufficient mathematical preparedness.This under-preparedness of first-year university students is not only reflected in theirperformance in the mathematics classes; it propagates into mathematically-oriented courseslike Engineering Mechanics, Strength of Materials, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, andControl Engineering. In our university’s engineering degree programs, drop-out for academicreasons primarily takes place in the first year of study, and the major “culprit” is EngineeringMechanics, followed by Engineering Mathematics (the other courses mentioned before aretaught later in the curriculum). This is in good accordance with a study of Tumen
engineering, which can tip the scales in the students’ decision orability to stay in engineering [1]. Gateway courses to advanced study in engineering, such asCalculus II, have been historically perceived by students to be the most difficult [2]. Anecdotalreasons for this could include the complexity of the calculus curriculum, the amount ofbackground knowledge needed to keep pace with learning, and lack of time for conceptexploration and engagement during class. Studies have shown that self-efficacy is morepredictive of mathematics performance than prior mathematics experiences and measures ofmathematics anxiety [3], [4].Self-efficacy can be defined as an individual's belief in their innate ability to achieve goals, andis based on both skill mastery
Problem-Solving,” in Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems. Springer, Cham 2016 [E-book] Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_21[9] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, 2009[10] J. Campbell et al. Coding In-Depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 42, no. 3, Aug. 2013, pp. 294–320. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475. [Accessed Apr. 6, 2020][11] M. Honey et al. STEM Integration in K-12 Education : Status, Prospects, and an Agendafor Research. Washington, District of Columbia: National Academies Press 2014AppendixInterview Protocol
Calculus and Probability (IP) 162 (20%) 72% 239 62% Integral Calculus (IC) 185 (17%) 53% 203 29% Differential Equations (DE) 314 (30%) 54% 321 36% Total 1399 50% 1870 47%The table shows that there was an improvement in some of the courses. For example, for DE andIC, the percentage of students passing the course increased from 36% and 29% to 54% and 53%,respectively. However, there were some other courses in which there was not an improvement(e.g. DC had 53% and then 52%) and a course (PC) in which there was a decline in studentspassing
preparation in mathematics, which has been shown to predict student success in engineeringschool [1, 2, 3]. It is also widely acknowledged that calculus in particular is a significant barrierfor many undergraduate engineers, because many students who do not perform well in their firstsemester of mathematics do not stay in an engineering major [4, 5]. This is a significant challengefor all engineering schools, since calculus is the basis for higher level engineering concepts, andis therefore generally taught at the beginning of engineering programs. It is important to study first year student retention in engineering programs because of thelarge number of reasons that students may leave in their first year. However, it is also important tolook
complicatedproblem of the two, a natural question to ask is why anyone would bother solving thesimpler problem analytically. This leads to a discussion of what information is availablefrom the analytical solution versus what is available from the numerical solution, theadvantages of an analytical solution, and under what circumstances one would seek anumerical solution. Finally, it leads to a point that is seldom appreciated when the threemain topics of this course are taught in a non-integrated manner - that the analyticalsolution of a simpler case can serve as a limiting case check of the numerical solution ofa more complex case. As simulations become more and more complex, students areencouraged to find ways to check their simulation results with
notation, language and conventions of the disciplines from which the models are taken. - As much as possible, content will be relevant, recognizable, and applicable in subsequent STEM coursework. - All content will be accessible from an intuitive or practical viewpoint. In particular, the level of abstraction will be significantly less than typically found in Calculus I.This approach stands in contrast to traditional calculus which is more abstract, more devoted to aformally rigorous foundation based on limits and continuity, and lightly dusted with applications.Thematically the revised Calculus I class is focused on three outcomes: - Develop geometric and physical intuition for derivatives and integrals
students fromfreshman through junior levels using a carefully redesigned curriculum of engineering sciencecore courses (ESCC) and a blended set of applied laboratories. ESCC consists of six core coursestaught by teams of ME faculty with clearly set educational objectives and managed by acoordinator and trained teaching assistants. Though essay type examination questions candemonstrate positive learning outcomes, multiple choice questions are better to pinpoint areas ofconceptual difficulties. After designing and adopting ESCC in 2006, faculty agreed that carefullydesigned multiple choice questions should form an integral part for all examinations in coreclasses. We frequently discuss performance data on conceptual questions and archive them
. Additionally, Allen has traveled across the country with WeTeach CS to facilitate teacher preparation courses for the high school computer science competency exam. He also serves as a master teacher for Bootstrap, a program that aims to implement computer science principles in mathematics classrooms. Before joining R-STEM, Allen worked in various positions in the educational field. As an interventionist in Orleans Parish Schools, he worked with elementary students to improve their literacy and numeracy levels. As a middle school teacher in Alief ISD, he taught 8th grade mathematics and Algebra I. Addi- tionally, Allen worked on mathematics curriculum development for Alief ISD and Rice University. Allen currently holds a
, where she focused on improving the first year physics course by developing and implementing ’Link Maps’, as well as synthesising an understanding of physics student learning by integrating a variety of theoretical backgrounds, from neuroscience via cognitive psychology to educational theories. Christine’s current research focuses on improving the science teacher education program at Oslo and Akershus University College, and she has a keen interest in how the brain learns physics. Christine also holds a position as Adjunct Associate Professor of University Pedagogy at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where she teaches short courses on university teaching to PhD students and researchers
encouraged toperform estimations and must begin to evaluate what they need to know in the context of theapplication. In response to the driving question, students are prompted to start askingconceptually-based questions that motivate subsequent active learning modules. Thus the goal ofthe EFFECTs framework is to create an integrative, rather than additive, module based approach.The most non-traditional component of this teaching (student centered learning) model is areflective writing assignment that usually occurs after each module in the form of a journal entryand which is featured as a significant component of the final report. These reflections, incombination with the decision worksheet, are a critical part of the process. With the
success of the new school. “IntroductoryMathematics for Engineering Applications” is an integral part of the model which has aproven success rate of not only improving retention and consequently graduation rate butalso improving self-efficacy of students with above average high school GPA’s. It is believedthat, “The hard workers make it through because the course helps them believe they can doit.”4 This was especially true for females who, “Felt more strongly that the course hadincreased their chances of success in engineering than did males. It helped them believe thatthey had chosen the right major, and the result was an even greater impact on ultimategraduation rates.”4Therefore, the purpose of implementing this course for the student is to
for success. In fact, perhaps studentsin such bridge programs will outperform even those who had intrinsically higher aptitude scores,but who were not exposed to exploratory activities. As a practical matter, identifying bridgeprograms as remedial is also ill-advised because it can attach a stigma that will discourageparticipation. Therefore, casting bridge programs in an exploratory, rather than remedial, contextwill foster both student and program success.Bibliography 1. Ardebili, Mahmoud. “Improving Retention: Engaging Pre-Engineering Students via Integrated Enrichment Activities”, Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. [Borough of Manhattan Community College
Prof. Baker is the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Scientific Computing in the Department of Mathematics at The Ohio State University. He is internationally known for his research on boundary integral methods as applied to free surface flow in liquids. He is also very concerned about math teaching for engineering students, and is conducting research on several aspects of improving teaching; impact of curriculum, prior knowledge of students, connections between physics and math, impact of technology and success in teaching methods. Page 24.619.1 c American Society for Engineering Education
understandany derivations regarding limits. A student who has just been introduced to the word, limit, issimply in no position to appreciate limits of difference quotients. The limit of the differencequotient is just a method of obtaining the value of the slope, not the derivative itself. There ismuch to be learned about curves with such an approach without belaboring the difficultiesinherent in limit processes. The integral of a positive piecewise monotonic function should bedefined as the area under the curve and again the limiting process should be viewed as just amethod of obtaining the value.All references to the concepts and perplexities of the 19th century Cauchy’s analysis should bepostponed until the series forms are confronted head on, and
1 n x f X ( x) 2 |0 1 / 2 0 1 / 2 X ; x f X ( x)dx ( xk ) X p . n k 10 SXThe above answers comprise a mix of confusion, ranging from the notion of an integral as a sum,to the sample mean as distinct from the theoretical mean, to nonsensical expressions related tobasic integration. A variety of elements unrelated to the problem are also introduced. That thisproblem posed such difficulties to so many students at the 10th week of the class is, in no smallpart, related to the fact that from the very beginning of the course there were a number ofstudents who