Volume 5, Issue 2, June 2020, Page: 42-45
On Mathematical Modelling by EEE, ECE, ME Civil Post Graduate Students a Case Study Report
Johnwilliam Jebaraj, Department of Mathematics, Vivekanandha College of Engineering for Women, Trichengode (Tk), Namakkal (Dt), Tamil Nadu, India
Received: Jan. 8, 2020;       Accepted: May 27, 2020;       Published: Jun. 8, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.tecs.20200502.15      View  123      Downloads  25
Recently the engineering institutes in India and abroad ignored the importance of mathematical modeling techniques in engineering teaching process and gave no places in their curriculum. In the present study the investigator applied random sampling on 15 post graduate engineering students, formulated four hypotheses connecting the innovative (attitude, relative advantage) and implementation variablion (utilisatation, satisfaction) and examined the relationships between the two variables. By using regression analysis, the result demonstrated that the two variables were significantly related. This implies the implementation of mathematical modeling in the engineering discipline was not successful. The investigator tried to identify the factors that would determine the successful implementation of mathematical modeling in the engineering discipline. It is critically important that mathematically trained and technologically competent research experts should be appointed and utilized as resources in the engineering research making bodies. Engineering research institutes with mathematical modeling facility should be collaborated with those that lack them to provide all research activities and opportunity to witness, learn from successful modeling related experiments.
Post Graduate Engineering Students, Mathematical Modeling, Attitude, Relative Advantage, Utilization, Satisfaction, Scaffe’s Post Hoc Test
To cite this article
Johnwilliam Jebaraj, On Mathematical Modelling by EEE, ECE, ME Civil Post Graduate Students a Case Study Report, Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020, pp. 42-45. doi: 10.11648/j.tecs.20200502.15
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cassady, J. (1998). Students and Instructor perceptions of the efficacy of computer aided lectures in undergraduate university course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19 (2), 175-189.
Dolk, D. R. (1988). Model management and structured modeling: The role of information Resources Dictionary System. Comm. ACM, 31: 6, 704-718.
Dolk, D., Kothemann, J. (1993). Model integration and the theory of Models. Decision Support System, 9 (1), 51-63.
Fishbein, M., & Ajen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intension and Behaviors: An Introduction to theory and Mathematical modeling in engineering, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow science teachers to use Technology. Guide Lines for Science educators. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education 1 (1), 39–60.
Garry Willgoose, S. (2005). Mathematical modeling of whole landscape evolution. Earth and Bio sphere Institute. School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Gratian-Guinness. (1997). History of Mathematical Sciences, London.
Jean Piere, H., & Boeuf, A. (2004). The design and implementation of a prototype structures modeling environment. Annals of operations research, 38, 453-484.
John. Jebaraj. (2011). Impact of Mathematical modeling on Modern Sciences. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Bio- technology and Management Sciences, 13 (3), 489–494.
John. Jebaraj. (2011). Evaluating mathematical modeling in the biological research set up. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences, 13 (3), 515-518.
Khaparde, M. S. (1998). Action research Process. National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi.
Leaderman, N., &Niess, M. (2000). Technology for technology’s sake or for the improve teaching and learning? School science and Mathematics, 100 (7), 345–348.
Mathematical Drawing and Modeling. (1994). Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Science and General Literature, 9th Edition, 628-629.
National Science Teachers Association. (1990). Science Teachers speak out the NASTA lead paper on Science and Technology Education for 21st century, Washington, Dc: Author.
Parimal Mandke, F. (2007). Promoting Culture of Research in Universities. Universities News, 4 (2), 4-7.
Ponnusamy, A., &Antti Rasila, D. (2007). Planner Harmonic Mappings. Mathematics letter, Ramanujanm Mathematical Society 17 (2), 56–65.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free press.
Sachi Hatakenaka, P. (2007). The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Innovation and Economic Development. New Frontiers in Education, 3 (4), 123-127.
International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (2008). 5th European congress on computational mechanics. ECCOMAS 2008. Available http://congress.cimne.com/iacm08/frontal/Stats.asp/ (retrived July 4, 2008).
National Science Teachers Association. (1999). N STA position Statement: The use of computer in Science education. Available http://www.nsta.org/ (retrived September 12, (1999).
Browse journals by subject