Comparative Effectiveness of Teaching Numerical Methods Using Chebyshev Polynomials and Conventional Techniques
Main Article Content
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of Chebyshev polynomials in numerical analysis, evidence of their instructional effectiveness in undergraduate mathematics remains limited. This study compared Chebyshev polynomial-based instruction, conventional teaching, and a combined instructional approach. A quasi-experimental design involved 60 undergraduate mathematics students assigned to three instructional groups. Data were collected using a validated structured questionnaire assessing conceptual understanding, problem-solving skills, learning attitudes, and perceived instructional effectiveness. Maple 18 was used to implement Chebyshev polynomial procedures and conduct numerical simulations. Educational outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and one-way analysis of variance at the .05 significance level. The combined approach received the highest mean rating for conceptual understanding (M = 3.48, SD = 0.58), although differences among the three groups were not statistically significant, F(2, 57) = 0.662, p = .520, η² = .023, indicating a small effect size. The Chebyshev-based approach showed more favorable questionnaire outcomes for problem-solving and student engagement. Numerical experiments demonstrated close agreement between Chebyshev polynomial approximations and benchmark solutions, with negligible numerical errors and high computational accuracy and stability. These findings indicate the computational promise of Chebyshev polynomial methods and suggest potential instructional benefits, while providing limited evidence of differences in conceptual understanding across approaches. The study highlights the potential value of combining computational methods with conventional instruction and recommends considering spectral methods in undergraduate mathematics curricula, supported by professional development for lecturers.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles
-
Vishnevskaya N.A. (2028)Analytical Review of the Methods of Studying Open Pit Slope Stability Under the Conditions of Mining Operations DigitalizationKompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 344(1), 99-108
-
Merkibayev Y.S. (2028)Optimization of Aluminum Casting Process Using PLA-Based Casting Patterns and Analysis of their Thermal BehaviorKompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 345(2), 5-15
-
Bakhtybayev N.B. (2028)Research and Improvement of Methods for Predicting Hidden Fracturing in a Rock Mass at a Polymetallic MineKompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 344(1), 109-116
Article Details

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Adeniran, A. O. (2022). Improving the teaching of numerical methods in higher education through computational tools. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(6), 1450–1465.
Ahmad, S., & Ambrosetti, A. (2015). A textbook on ordinary differential equations (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16408-3
Authors. (2025). Blinded reference.
Boyd, J. P. (2001). Chebyshev and Fourier spectral methods (2nd ed.). Dover Publications. https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486411835
Canuto, C., Hussaini, M. Y., Quarteroni, A., & Zang, T. A. (2006). Spectral methods: Fundamentals in single domains. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30726-6
Driscoll, T. A., Hale, N., & Trefethen, L. N. (Eds.). (2014). Chebfun guide. Pafnuty Publications. https://www.chebfun.org/docs/guide/
Gautschi, W. (2004). Orthogonal polynomials: Computation and approximation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198506720.001.0001
Mahdy, A. M. S., & Mukhtar, N. A. H. (2017). Second kind shifted Chebyshev polynomials for solving the model nonlinear ODEs. American Journal of Computational Mathematics, 7(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcm.2017.74028
Martín-Caraballo, M., & Tenorio-Villalón, C. (2015). Interactive teaching of nonlinear numerical methods using GeoGebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(3), 321–338.
Owens, R. (2023). Open educational resources and digital platforms for teaching numerical methods. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–18.
Pleština, D., Milin Šipuš, I., & Bašić, L. (2021). Polynomials: Unifying concepts in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(3), 401–420.
Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., & Saleri, F. (2007). Numerical mathematics (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98885
Rukmangadachari, E. (2012). Differential equations. Pearson India.
Tabieh, S. (2024). A system-based teaching model for learning polynomial functions. Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), 75–90.
Trefethen, L. N. (2013). Approximation theory and approximation practice. SIAM Review, 55(2), 395–397.
Trefethen, L. N. (2019). Spectral methods in numerical analysis. SIAM Review, 61(3), 463–489.
Trefethen, L. N., & Weideman, J. A. C. (2014). The exponentially convergent trapezoidal rule. SIAM Review, 56(3), 385–458. https://doi.org/10.1137/130932132
Weideman, J. A. C., & Trefethen, L. N. (2007). The Chebfun system for numerical computation. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 33(2), 1–18.


