Advertisement

A Problem Solving Based Approach to Learn Engineering Mathematics

  • Nasim MuhammadEmail author
  • Seshasai Srinivasan
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)

Abstract

In this work we present the outcome of a problem solving based approach interlaced with different frequency of assessments as well as the duration of the course in a first year engineering mathematics subject. The experiment was performed with about 280 students split into various cohorts. For each cohort, the content was the same, i.e., differential calculus and its application. In the problem solving based strategy that was used in the cohorts, the students participated in weekly problem solving sessions wherein a set of questions were solved by students in groups of 3–5. The students were allowed to interact with their peers, the instructor as well as a qualified teaching assistant. The weekly problems were selected such that the students had to routinely recall the concepts and apply them to solve problems, thereby reinforcing the concepts and aiding in learning the material better. By using the problem solving based approach, the performance of the students, assessed via periodic term tests, was very satisfactory and much better than the average first year score of the students across all the courses that they take. Imbibing the same learning environment into the cohorts that went through the content in 6 weeks resulted in a 10% decrease in the performance of the students, indicating that there is an incubation period during which the learning happens that cannot be fast-tracked. Finally, in determining whether this can be improved by administering more frequent tests in the 6-week format, forcing students to be more regular in their studies in the 6-week course, it was found that the gains are only marginal.

Keywords

Problem solving Mathematics Classroom practice 

References

  1. 1.
    Beichner, R.: The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burrowes, P.A.: A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: lord’s constructivist model put to a test. Am. Biol. Teach. 65, 491–502 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.2307/4451548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cummings, K., Marx, J., Ronald, T., Dennis, K.: Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Am. J. Phys. 67, S38–S44 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J.W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., Wenderoth, M.P.: Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 132–139 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M.J., Knight, R.D.: A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. Am. J. Phys. 73, 459–462 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1862633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knight, J.K., Wood, W.B.: Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 298–310 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Redish, E.F., Saul, J.M., Steinberg, R.N.: On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. Am. J. Phys. 65, 45–54 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sidhu, G., Srinivasan, S.: An intervention-based active-learning strategy to enhance student performance in mathematics. Int. J. Pedagog. Teach. Educ. 2, 277–288 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan, S., Centea, D.: An active learning strategy for programming courses. In: Proceedings of 2018 International Conference Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies Learning (IMCL2018), Hamilton, pp. 21–30 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M.: Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 123–138 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., Spencer, J.N.: A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 570 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis, S.E., Lewis, J.E.: Departing from lectures: an evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 135 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roselli, R.J., Brophy, S.P.: Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 311–324 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00906.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., Donovan, S.S.: Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 21–51 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hake, R.R.: Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wage, K.E., Buck, J.R., Wright, C.H.G., Welch, T.B.: The signals and systems concept inventory. IEEE Trans. Educ. 48, 448–461 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2005.849746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buck, J.R., Wage, K.E.: Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 22, 76–81 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.1406489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prince, M.: Does active learning work? a review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223–231 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., Bjorklund, S.A.: Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students’ reported learning gains. J. Eng. Educ. 90, 123–130 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00579.x
  20. 20.
    Capon, N., Kuhn, D.: What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cogn. Instr. 22, 61–79 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D.: Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instr. 13, 533–568 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Centea, D., Srinivasan, S.: A comprehensive assessment strategy for a PBL environment. Int. J. Innov. Res. Educ. Sci. 3, 364–372 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M.: Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 27–61 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Inc. (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S.L., Seymour, E.: Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Sci. Educ. 91, 36–74 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bloom, B.S.: The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ. Res. 13, 4–16 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.2307/1175554CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology, McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations