Procedia

Social and
Behavioral
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000 Sciences
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

WCES 2012

Developing Mathematical Communication Skills of

Engineering Students
Roselainy Abdul Rahman a *, Yudariah Mohammad Yusof b , Hamidreza Kashefi c,
Sabariah Baharun d
a
Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, UTM International Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor, Malaysia
c
Regional Centre for Engineering Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor, Malaysia
d
Malaysia-Japan International Institue of Technology, UTM International Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

In Malaysia and also elsewhere in the world the demands for graduates who have employability skills such as ability to think
critically, solve problems and can communicate are highly sought in the workplace. In the early 2006, the development of such
skills was recognized as integral goals of undergraduate education at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Since then rigorous efforts
have been made to inculcate these skills amongst the undergraduates. In this paper, we will share some of our experiences in
coping with the challenges of changing our teaching practices to accommodate this quest though focusing on communication. For
mathematics learning to occur, we believed that students should participate actively in the knowledge construction and be able to
take charge of their own learning. Taking these aspects into consideration, we had developed a framework of active learning and
used it to guide our instruction in engineering mathematics at UTM. Here we will discuss the strategies that we had designed and
employed in engaging students with the subject matter as well as to initiate and support students’ thinking and communication in
the language of mathematics. Some students’ responses that gave indications of their struggle, progress and growth encountered
in the research implementation will also be presented.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Communication, Mathematical Thinking, Multivariable Calculus, Students’ Obstacles

*
Corresponding Author name. Tel.: +6-014-238-7735
E-mail address: khamidreza4@live.utm.my
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

1. Introduction

Generic skills are becoming major and important requirements set by many stakeholders as due to business and
industrial competitiveness, graduates who can think critically, solve problems and communicate, to name a few, are
highly sought by employers (Akop et al., 2009; McCray, 2001). A special report from the Steering Committee of the
National Engineering Education Colloquies (2006) has also recommended that there should be a study to
investigate how the various elements of ”innovation, critical thinking, systems thinking, biology, mathematics,
physical sciences, engineering sciences, problem solving, design, analysis, judgment, and communication relate to
each other to characterize the core of engineering as a profession.” Thus, in Malaysia, six out of eight domains of
competencies to be emphasized by higher education providers, refers to generic skills which includes
communication and teamworking (Malaysian Qualification Framework, 2005).
Since 2006, UTM have included the development of generic skills as goals of undergraduate engineering
education but studies at UTM (Sabariah et al, 2007; Roselainy, 2009) had indicated that the goals have not been
translated into implementation successfully. In addition, there has been a radical shift in the mathematical skills
needed at the modern workplace which has not been fully recognized by the formal education system (Hoyles,
2007). Taking the above aspects into consideration, we had developed some innovative teaching approaches that
support students in their mathematical learning, that empower students with more successful ways of thinking about
mathematics, enhance their awareness of how to acquire efficient techniques in constructing knowledge and
encourage them to participate and to take charge of their own learning, enhance mathematical communication skills,
in written and verbal forms.

2. Our Approach

Our model of teaching and learning (Roselainy, 2009; Roselainy et al, 2010) focused on three major aspects: the
mathematical knowledge development, mathematical thinking processes as well as the appropriate generic or soft
skills. The emphases were on students’ development of higher order thinking skills which include critical thinking
and problem solving, knowledge construction, competency in procedures and techniques and the generic skills
(communication, teamwork and self-directed learning). In developing the mathematical pedagogy for classroom
practice, we adopted the theoretical foundations of Tall (1995) and Gray, et al (1999) and used frameworks from
Mason, et al (1985) and Watson & Mason (1998) and the works of Meyers & Jones (1993) to support the important
elements of effective active learning. In addition, we took into account students’ existing difficulties and
preconceived preferences for procedural learning. Thus, the teaching acts implemented were aimed at shifting
students’ awareness gradually from rote learning towards understanding the procedures and recognising their
mathematical powers, and to enhance the students’ generic skills (Roselainy, et al, 2007). We have since expanded
our methodology to include ‘blended learning’ so as to address the various students’ learning styles and increase
effective use of technology (Kashefi, et al, 2011).

3. Active Learning

We had adopted an active learning mode to integrate the mathematical learning and the enhancement of generic
skills to promote a learning culture in which students could be active participants in their mathematical knowledge
construction and development by using the following strategies; (a) Specially designed classroom tasks – tasks that
focused students’ attention on the mathematical processes and structures that we wished them to learn. The tasks
were categorized as Illustrations, Structured Examples and Reflection with prompts and questions; (b) Classroom
activities – these include working in pairs, small group (informal & formal), quick feedback (minute paper, muddy
points, turn to your partner), students’ own examples, assignment (group or individual), discuss and share, reading
and writing; (c) Encouraging communication – specially designed prompts and questions initiated both written and
oral mathematical communication through discussion and sharing of ideas among the students and written
assignments; (d) Supporting self-directed learning – through structured questions created to strengthen the students’
2
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

understanding of mathematical concepts and techniques, and (e) Using both summative and formative types of
assessment.
We found that encouraging students to talk, to listen, to read, to write and to reflect on their mathematical
learning and problem solving, would enhance their awareness of their own thinking as well as their communication
skills. Consequently, they are able to improve their understanding, gain new insights into the problem and
communicate their ideas in a mathematical manner. In this way, students became more responsible for their learning
and were able to think for themselves.
All the mathematical tasks used in the classroom were compiled as a workbook. This helps students to focus on
the tasks-at-hand rather than on writing and copying everything down. Furthermore students prefer having some
documentation with them when they are working in the class. The prompts and questions that we have developed
were placed at the relevant problems so as to guide students in their thinking and to make explicit the processes and
structures that they were learning. They also served as the motivation to engage students’ participation in activities
and communication.

4. The Observation

We first implemented the approach during the 2006/07 academic year and students’ responses obtained were
used to informed us on issues such as what were the concepts the students were attending to, were any of the
prompts and questions misleading or do we have to develop other possible means of imparting the mathematical
knowledge as well as encouraging students’ to think mathematically (Sabariah, et al., 2007). We then modified,
improved and introduced changes where appropriate to the workbook, our delivery and the assessments and
implemented them during the next academic session. We worked as a team and each played the role of teacher as
researcher. A questionnaire requesting comments on our approach was administered to the students at the beginning
and again at the end of the semester of the academic year 2010/11. However, most of the data were collected mainly
through self-reflection, classroom observations, students’ written work and interviews.

3
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

5. Students’ Responses

Here, we will share some of the students’ responses early in the course and some that were observed later in the
course. We encouraged students to work in groups or in pairs so as to facilitate discussion amongst them. Most
students enjoyed the opportunities to participate in their own learning. We observed and noted various difficulties
and misconceptions displayed by the students, particularly during the first half of the semester. Many faced
difficulties to communicate mathematically. By using structured questions with prompts and questions, students
usually can give some response to the questions asked although not necessarily correct. See excerpt below of a
student A’s work in the task under Illustrations (Figure 1). The responses indicated that he was not sure of what is
meant by ‘property of functions’.

Figure 1. A typical student’s difficulty to communicate mathematically

Student A claimed that he understood the concepts but could not articulate their knowledge very well to their
friends and in written form.
Some students also struggled in their attempts in writing out mathematical ideas in English as indicated in the
following excerpt of student B’s work (Figure 2). The course was conducted in English and so were most of the
other courses taken by the students. In the Making Sense section, students were requested to explain in writing how
to evaluate “double integrals” In this example, our student used a mixture of Malay Language and English and
explanations was written in short form rather than full explanations.

4
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

Figure 2. A typical student’s attempt in writing out mathematical ideas in English

During an interview conducted at the end of the course, two students (Tikah and Fizah) were asked to solve the
following questions (Table 1):
Table 1. Two typical questions

Question 2 Prompts/Questions
 Can you identify and sketch the region of
Let R be the region enclosed by and . integration?
 How do you write the iterated integral?
o What are the limits of integration in
(a) Express as an iterated integral in rectangular coordinates. the rectangular coordinates? In polar
coordinates?

(b) Express in terms of polar coordinates.

Question 3 Prompts/Questions
Use polar coordinates to evaluate the double integral.  How do you change Cartesian to polar
form?
o Integrand
(a) ; R is the disk . o Differential of integration (dA)
o Domain of integration
 How do you find the limits of integration?
 What basic integration techniques do you
need?

Below is a copy of their work (Table 2). As they worked, they were discussing with each other; about what
means in Cartesian coordinates and which order to take. However, this was not clearly indicated in their working.
Looking at the limits and their sketch, it was clear that they had chosen the order . There was more discussion

5
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

on what was in polar coordinates and how the limits should be read. They had worked out the conversion and
knew the technique of how to read the limits but made a mistake in identifying the lower limit of r.
Table 2. Students’ responses to the questions 2 and 3 during interview

Question 2 Question 3

While working on Question 3, they got zero as an answer and were quite concerned as they felt that it was wrong.
Fizah whispered, “can’t be zero, can’t it?” They ‘talked through’ their work again but could not find the mistake and
decided to submit what they had written. In themselves, these are not significant pieces of work but looking at the
work with the added element of the on-going discussion, verbalisation of mathematical ideas and techniques,
showed a remarkable shift in mathematical behaviour for the students. Although they were just as concerned about
checking answers at the back of the book, they did not request for any confirmation of the ‘correctness’ of their
work when they finished with it.
Many students appreciated the opportunities provided and were willing to participate in the class activities. They
showed some progress in their ability to construct ideas on their own, to discuss with their friends and lecturers as
well as communicate mathematically in class. See example below of an excerpt of student C’s written work,
indicating his efforts in making explicit his reasoning and response to questions asked (Figure 3). His emphasis was
no longer only on computation.

6
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

Figure 3. An excerpt of students’ written work

In general, the findings from such responses and observations indicated that students made conscious efforts to
use appropriate terminologies in their explanation and solutions to the problems. They were no longer afraid to
speak up, able to think through their responses before articulating and are also better at expressing what they had
discussed in their own words.

6. Conclusion

We had adapted and modified questions and structure them in a manner to build concepts and ideas, to draw
students to misconceptions and to introduce some applications. We had provided and promoted an active learning
environment to engage students in their learning and to participate actively through the diverse activities created.
The mathematical tasks were designed so that students could experience for themselves the mathematical processes
such as the process of identifying the general class of problems they were working on. Throughout, the students
were actively supported in discussing, verbalising and writing out their understanding of the mathematical ideas and
concepts. The diverse activities had generated the students’ interest as well as providing them with opportunities to
take charge of their learning. At the beginning, students were uncomfortable with the activities as they were
different from their usual learning experiences. However, after a few sessions, they gradually adapted to the new
environment showing particular enthusiasm working in groups, sharing of ideas and working out the mathematics
for themselves. Thus the environment created had facilitated both thinking and communication skills among the
students, making for a much livelier class.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledged the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for
the financial support via UTM Razak School Research University Grant (No: 4B014) given in making this study
possible.

References

Akop, M. Z., Mohd Rosli, M. A., Mansor, M. R., and Alkahari, M. R. (2009). Soft skills development of Engineering undergraduate students
through Formula Varsity Engineering Education (ICEED), International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED 209), 7-8 Dec, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Gray, E., Pinto, M., Pitta, D. & Tall, D.O., (1999) Knowledge Construction and Diverging Thinking in Elementary and Advanced Mathematics,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1-3), pp 111-133.
Kashefi, H., Zaleha Ismail., Yudariah Mohd Yusof and Roselainy Abdul Rahman. (2011). Promoting Creative Problem Solving in Engineering
Mathematics through Blended Learning, The 3rd International Congress On Engineering Education (ICEED 2011/IEEE), pp.14-18, 7-8
December, Malaysia..
Malaysian Quality Agency. 2005. Malaysian Qualification Framework: MQA Guide book.
Mason, J., Burton, L., and Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking Mathematically. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Wokingham, England.

7
 Author name / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

McCray, P. D. (2001). Business View on Math in 2010 C.E. CUPM Discussion Papers About Mathematics and the Mathematical Sciences in
2010: What should students know? The Mathematical Association of America.
Meyers, C., and Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning: Strategies or the College Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McCray, P. D. (2001). Business View on Math in 2010 C.E. CUPM Discussion Papers About Mathematics and the Mathematical Sciences in
2010: What should students know? The Mathematical Association of America.
Roselainy Abd. Rahman. (2009). Changing My Own and My Students Attitudes Towards Calculus Through Working on Mathematical Thinking ,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Open University, UK.
Roselainy Abd. Rahman., Yudariah Mohd Yusof., & Sabariah Baharun. (2007). Enhancing Thinking through Active Learning in Engineering
Mathematics, In CD Proceedings of Fourth Regional Conf. on Engineering Educ, Johor Bahru, 3–5 Dec.
Roselainy Abd. Rahman., J. H Mason., and Yudariah Binti Mohd Yusof. (2010). Factors Affecting Students' Change of Learning Behaviour, The
3rd Regional Conference on Engineering Education & Research in Higher Education, Kucing, Sarawak, 7-9 June.
Sabariah Baharun, Yudariah Mohd Yusof., and Roselainy Abd. Rahman. (2007). Enhancing Engineering Students’ Mathematical Competency
Through Mathematical Thinking. In CD Proceedings of Third Intern. Conference on Research and Education in Mathematics, The Legend
Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, 10-12 April.
Special Report, The National Engineering Education Colloquies, (2006). Journal of Engineering education, p 257-261, Oct .
Tall, D. O. (1995). Mathematical Growth in Elementary and Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In L. Meira & D. Carraher, (Eds.), Proceedings
of PME 19, Recife, Brazil, Vol. I, pp 61-75.
Watson, A., and Mason, J. (1998). Questions and Prompts for Mathematical Thinking. ATM, Derby.