Investigates the Impact of Both Fundamental and Advanced Mathematics Courses on Students’ Understanding and Motivation Towards Engineering Programs in Private Universities in Rwanda
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53983/ijmds.v14n5.004Keywords:
Fundamental Mathematics, Advanced Mathematics, EngineeringAbstract
This study investigates the impact of both Fundamental and Advanced Mathematics courses on students’ understanding and motivation towards engineering programs in private universities in Rwanda. Recognizing mathematics as a foundational pillar in engineering education, the research aims to assess how the structure, delivery, and perceived relevance of mathematics courses influence student engagement and academic confidence. A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. A total of 150 students enrolled in engineering programs across three private universities participated in the study. Of these, 60% (90 students) were in their first or second year (primarily exposed to Fundamental Mathematics), while 40% (60 students) were in their third or fourth year (with experience in Advanced Mathematics). The findings indicate that 78% of the students believe that Fundamental Mathematics significantly helped them build a solid foundation for their engineering courses. However, only 52% reported that Advanced Mathematics directly enhanced their motivation, citing challenges in application and teaching methodologies. Additionally, 65% of the respondents expressed that the way mathematics is taught impacts their interest in engineering, with those exposed to applied and contextualized instruction reporting higher motivation levels. The study concludes with recommendations to revise mathematics curricula in engineering programs to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, aiming to improve both understanding and student motivation in private Rwandan universities.
Downloads
References
Artigue, M. (2009). Didactical design in mathematics education. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 1–6.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/749717
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 269–277.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008). The relevance of prior knowledge in learning and instructional design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(5), Article 113.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., . . . Human, P. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1–7.
Kolmos, A., & de Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 141–161). Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Okamoto, Y. (2002). Connecting mathematics with engineering applications. Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 5–9.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.
Republic of Rwanda. (2020). Vision 2050. Government of Rwanda.
Santos-Trigo, M. (2007). Mathematics education: A vision of engineering programs. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(3), 301–314.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage Publications.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Research Corporation.
Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 6–14.
Zachariah, T., & Dawe, L. (2017). Teaching engineering mathematics using real-world examples. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 7(2), 85–92.
