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.

Keywords:
Download Full-Text PDF Direct PDF file • 12459.pdf

Share Article:

Citation Metrics:

Scopus

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles

Data source Crossref
0
citations
Citation counts are source-specific and may differ because database coverage, reference matching, and update schedules are different. Counts are not added together. Crossref values represent citation links registered and matched by Crossref.
Check Secondary Documents in Scopus
Open this article in Scopus, then check the Secondary documents tab. Use Manual Citation Fallback only for counts you have verified manually.
Open in Scopus
Similar Scopus Articles
Scopus
  1. Vishnevskaya N.A. (2028)
    Analytical Review of the Methods of Studying Open Pit Slope Stability Under the Conditions of Mining Operations Digitalization
    Kompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 344(1), 99-108
  2. Merkibayev Y.S. (2028)
    Optimization of Aluminum Casting Process Using PLA-Based Casting Patterns and Analysis of their Thermal Behavior
    Kompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 345(2), 5-15
  3. Bakhtybayev N.B. (2028)
    Research and Improvement of Methods for Predicting Hidden Fracturing in a Rock Mass at a Polymetallic Mine
    Kompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra, 344(1), 109-116

Article Details

How to Cite
Bepo, A. A., & Olatunji, E. A. (2026). Comparative Effectiveness of Teaching Numerical Methods Using Chebyshev Polynomials and Conventional Techniques. Mikailalsys Journal of Advanced Engineering International, 3(3), 425-458. https://doi.org/10.58578/mjaei.v3i3.12459

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.