Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dual Measures of Mathematical Modeling for Engineering and Other STEM Undergraduates

  • Published:
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses two aspects of integrating mathematics education with engineering education that may address persistence of engineering majors (and STEM majors more broadly): an emphasis on modeling as a vehicle for more authentic learning activity (Niss et al. 2007), and the need for measures that can support academic units’ efforts to collect local data about student attainment of program goals. In this paper, we contribute: (1) a measure for modeling self-efficacy and its corresponding design process; (2) a measure for modeling competency and its corresponding design process; (3) a preliminary analysis of the relationship between modeling competency and self-efficacy. We argue that such instruments address a genuine need of engineering departments (as well as STEM education researchers) to have a means for collecting local data on students’ modeling self-efficacy and competency.

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

Notes

  1. In accordance with standard practice, we provide Cronbach’s α for the Purple form, α = 00.489 and Orange form, α =0 .477. Because the MCQ instrument does not meet underlying assumptions, these are likely to be gross underestimates. See (see McNeish 2018; Peters 2014; Revelle and Zinbarg 2009) for further discussion of this issue.

  2. We ran models with and without an intercept. The intercept was neither significantly nor meaningfully different from zero.

References

  • Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley interdiciplinaty reviews: computational statistics, 2, 433–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ABET Engineering accreditation Comission (2018-2019). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs.

  • Alagoz, C., & Ekici, C. (2020). Cognitive diagnostic modelling for mathematical modelling assessment. In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, & C. Lampen (Eds.), Mathematical modelling education and sense-making (pp. 349–359). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 3, pp. 307–337). United States of America: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23(3), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, K., Libertini, J., Levy, R., Zbiek, R. M., Galluzzo, B., Long, M., et al. (2016). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in mathematical modeling education. USA: Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomhöj, M., & Jensen, T. (2003). Developing mathematical modelling competence: Conceptual clarification and educational planning. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(3), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chickester: Horwood Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bressoud, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Seven characterists of successful calculus programs. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 62(2), 144–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiel, H. J., McManus, J. M., & Shaw, K. M. (2017). From biology to mathematical models and back: Teaching modeling to biology students, and biology to math and engineering students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 141–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. (2016). Introducing modeling transition diagrams as a tool to connect mathematical modeling to mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(2), 77–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. (2017). How can emphasizing mathematical modeling principles benefit students in a traditionally taught differential equations coures? The Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 45, 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. (2018). How does validating activity contribute to the modeling process? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. (2019). Precision, priorities, and proxies in mathematical modelling. In G. Stillman & J. Brown (Eds.), Lines of inquiry in mathematical modelling research in education (pp. 105–123). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. A., & Kandasamy, S. S. (2018). On how participation in a modeling competition occasions changes in undergraduate students’ self-efficacy regarding mathematical modeling. In T. E. Hodges, G. J. Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the north American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J., Melhuish, K., & Kandasamy, S. S. (2019). Building mathematics self-efficacy of STEM undergraduates through mathematical modeling. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1634223.

  • Darlington, R. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Will.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiBattista, D., & Kurzawa, L. (2011). Examination of the quality of multiple-choice items on classroom texts. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez-Garcia, S., Garcia-Planas, M. I., & Taberna, J. (2016). Mathematical modelling in engineering: An alternative way to teach linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(7), 1076–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. (2004). Principles of mathematical modeling. Burlingon, MA: Elsevier Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wang, M.-T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education (2018). EUR-ACE framework standards and guidlines. https://www.enaee.eu/eur-ace-system/standards-and-guidelines/#standards-and-guidelines-for-accreditation-of-engineering-programmes. Accessed 6 June 2020.

  • Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending. The encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences,190, 2495–2498. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00363-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frejd, P. (2013). Modes of modelling assessment—A literature review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 413–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisinger, B. N., & Rajraman, D. (2013). Why they leave: Understanding student attrition from engineering majors. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 914–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güner, N. (2013). Senior engineering students' views on mathematics courses in engineering. College Student Journal, 47(3).

  • Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, C., Crouch, R. & Davis, J. (2000). Mathematical Mmdelling skills: A research instrument. Technical Report No. 55. University of Hertfordshire Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences.

  • Hallström, J., & Schönborn, K.,. J. (2019). Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: Reinforcing the argument. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(22). Available from: https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-019-0178-z.

  • Hankeln, C. (2020). Mathematical modeling in Germany and France: A comparison of students’ modeling processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hankeln, C., Adamek, C., & Greefrath, G. (2019). Assessing sub-competencies of mathematical modelling-development of a new test instrument. In G. Stillman & J. Brown (Eds.), Lines of inquiry in mathematical modelling research in education (ICME-13 monographs). Springer international publishing. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-14931-4_8.

  • Hoey, J. J., & Nault, E. W. (2008). Barriers and challenges to assessment in engineering education. In J. P. Lavel, S. A. Rajala, & J. E. Spurlin (Eds.), Designing better engineering education through assessment: A pratical resourse for faculty and development chairs on using assessment and ABET criteria to improve student learning (pp. 171–189). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Engineering Alliance (2014). 25 years of the Washington accords. (pp. 1–25). Accessed from: https://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/History/25YearsWashingtonAccord-A5booklet-FINAL.pdf.

  • Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, G. (2017). The teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 627–291). United States: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kertil, M., & Gurel, C. (2016). Mathematical modeling: A bridge to STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S.-I., Jiang, Y., & Song, J. (2015). The effects of interest and utility value on mathematics engagement and achievement. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, & S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 63–78). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., & Raghavan, J. (2009). A mathematical modeling module with system engineering approach for teaching undergraduate students to conquer complexity. In G. Allen, J. Nabrzyski, E. Seidel, G. D. van Albada, J. Dongarra, & P. M. A. Sloot (Eds.), Computational sciences - ICCS 2009 (pp. 93–102). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loo, C. W., & Choy, J. L. F. (2013). Sources of self-efficacy influencing academic performance of engineering students. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maaß, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM: Mathematics Education, 38(2), 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist, J., Edstrom, K., Gunnarsson, S., & Ostlund, S. (2006). The application of CDIO standards in the evaluation of Swedish engineering degree programmes. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 5(2), 361–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGourty, J., Sebastian, C., & William, S. (2013). Developing a comprehensive assessment program for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 2–32). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennel, S. (2009). An engineering-oriented approach to the introductory differential equations course. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19(1), 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G.-J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity. The European Health Psychologist, 16(2), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 189–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, Cronbach's coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(4), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schukajlow, S., Liess, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students' task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowski, A. (2015). The effect of math modeling on student's emerging understanding. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(3), 142–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spurlin, J. E., Rajala, S. A., & Lavel, J. P. (2008). Designing better engineering education through assessment:A practical resource for faculty and department chairs on using assessment and ABET criteria to improve student learning. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, G. (2000). Impact of prior knowledge of task context on approaches to applications tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 333–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2), 157–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and thinks, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interest. Psychological Bulletin, 1135(6), 859–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temponi, C. (2005). Continuous improvement framework: Implications for academia. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigueros, M., & Possani, E. (2013). Using an economics model for teaching linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 438(4), 1779–1792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, T., Shuman, L. J., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2010). Model-eliciting activities: Assessing engineering student problem solving and skill integration processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 831–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, C. Y., Georgiopoulos, M., Hagen, S. C., Geiger, C. L., Dagley-Falls, M. A., Islas, A. L., et al. (2011). Improving student learning in calculus through applications. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(5), 591–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawojewski, J. S., Hjalmarson, M. A., Bowman, K. J., & Lesh, R. (2008). A modeling perspective on learning and teaching in engineering education. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, & K. J. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1750813.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas State University, (Mathematics), San Marcos, Texas, USA

    Jennifer A. Czocher, Kathleen Melhuish, Sindura Subanemy Kandasamy & Elizabeth Roan

Authors
  1. Jennifer A. Czocher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Melhuish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sindura Subanemy Kandasamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Roan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Czocher.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(PDF 44.2 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 3.10 mb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 40.8 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

A. Czocher, J., Melhuish, K., Kandasamy, S.S. et al. Dual Measures of Mathematical Modeling for Engineering and Other STEM Undergraduates. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 7, 328–350 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00124-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00124-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation