Leveraging the Mathematical Contest in Modeling to Enhance the Undergraduate STEM Experience

REFERENCES

• Abernathy, K., Z. Abernathy, B. Costner, J. Rusinko, and K. Westover. 2017. Cultivating a culture of undergraduate research at a public comprehensive university. PRIMUS. 27(3): 337–351.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bialek, W. and D. Botstein. 2004. Introductory science and mathematics education for 21st-century biologists. Science. 303(5659): 788–790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breierova, L., M. Choudhari, and J. Forrester. 1996. An introduction to sensitivity analysis. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-988-system-dynamics-self-study-fall-1998-spring-1999/readings/sensitivityanalysis.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, J. and L. Swaner. 2009. High-impact practices: Applying the learning outcomes literature to the development of successful campus programs. Peer Review. 11(2): 26–30.
   Google Scholar
• Cline, K. S. 2009. Secrets of the mathematical contest in modeling. http://mathquest.carroll.edu/mcm/mcm.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• COMAP. 2012. Mathematical contest in modeling past problems. http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2012/problems/. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• COMAP. 2015. Mathematical contest in modeling past problems. http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2015/problems. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• COMAP and SIAM. 2016. Guidelines for assessment and instruction in mathematical modeling education (GAIMME). http://www.siam.org/reports/gaimme.php. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• De Pillis, L. and S. Adolph. 2012. Mathematical biology at an undergraduate liberal arts college. CBE Life Science Edition. 9(4): 417–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Pillis, L. and A. Radunskaya. 2003. A mathematical model of immune response to tumor invasion. Proceedings of the Second M.I.T. Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics, pp. 1661–1668.
   Google Scholar
• Douma, J., R. Cortez, M. Jones, T. Williams, J. Malkevitch, C. Collins, D. Lott, and J. Miller. 2015. Mathematical Association of America Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUMP) guide in mathematical modeling. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/MathematicalModeling.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., N. Dasgupta, and J. G Stout. 2014. Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1(1): 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Girls Who Code. https://girlswhocode.com. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Handelsman, J., D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, et al. 2004. Scientific teaching. Science. 304(5670): 521–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingalls, B. 2008. Sensitivity analysis: From model parameters to system behaviour. Essays in Biochemistry. 45: 177–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingalls, B. P. 2013. Mathematical Modeling in Systems Biology: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuenzi, J. J. 2008. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. DigitalCommons at University of Nebraska – Lincoln. Congressional Research Service Reports. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, J. J. 2008. Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://ueeval.ucr.edu/teaching_practices_inventory/Kuh_2008.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kulturel-Konak, S., M. L. D’Allegro, and S. Dickinson. 2011. Review of gender differences in learning styles: Suggestions for stem education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research. 4(3): 9–18.
   Google Scholar
• Larripa, K. R. and B. Mazzag. 2016. A modular approach to teaching mathematical modeling in biotechnology in the undergraduate curriculum. PRIMUS. 26(5): 485–504.
   Google Scholar
• Mathworks. 2018. Learn to code with MATLAB. https://learntocode.mathworks.com. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Murthy, D. N. P. and N. W. Page. 1981. Teaching mathematical modelling to undergraduate engineering students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 12(2): 235–243.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, J. and K. Neishi. 2010. Bridging disciplinary divides: Developing an interdisciplinary stem workforce. Abt Associates. https://www.idahoecosystems.org/sites/default/files/literature_resource/es_igert_summary_report_october_2010.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, M., H. Zullo, and N. Preyer. 1999. The mathematical contest in modeling: Success at a small regional university. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies. 9(4): 289–300.
   Google Scholar
• Perna, L., V. Lundy-Wagner, N. D. Drezner, M. Gasman, S. Yoon, E. Bose, and S. Gary. 2009. The contribution of HBCUs to the preparation of African American women for STEM careers: A case study. Research in Higher Education. 50(1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russomanno, D., R. Best, S. Ivey, J. R. Haddock, D. Franceschetti, and R. J. Hairston. 2010. MemphiSTEP: A STEM talent expansion program at the University of Memphis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. 11(1/2): 69–81.
   Google Scholar
• SIMIODE. 2018. Systemic Initiative for Modeling Investigations and Opportunities with Differential Equations. https://www.simiode.org. Accessed 28 December 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Sweeder, R. D. and P. E. Strong. 2012. Impact of a sophomore seminar on the desire of STEM majors to pursue a science career. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. 13(3): 52–61.
   Google Scholar
• Timmerman, B. E. C., D. C. Strickland, R. L. Johnson, and J. R. Payne. 2011. Development of a universal rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 36(5): 509–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toews, C. 2012. Mathematical modeling in the undergraduate curriculum. PRIMUS. 22(7): 545–563.
   Google Scholar
• Tsui, L. 2007. Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature. The Journal of Negro Education. 76(4): 555–581.
   Google Scholar
• Tufte, E. R. 2001. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldrop, M. M. 2015. The science of teaching science. Nature. 523(7560):272–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar