ADEQUACY OF THE MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING (MET) MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM IN SUPPORTING STEAM SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Author: Dr Gabriel S. Akakpo

ABSTRACT

The integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) has become a dominant educational paradigm for developing the twenty-first-century skills required for innovation-driven, technologically complex, and interdisciplinary industries. The maritime sector, characterized by rapid technological change, digitalization, automation, and sustainability imperatives, increasingly demands graduates who possess not only technical competence but also creativity, systems thinking, problem-solving, and adaptive capacity. In Maritime Education and Training (MET), mathematics plays a pivotal role in underpinning STEAM skill development, yet concerns persist regarding the adequacy of existing mathematics curricula in fostering these competencies. This article examines the adequacy of the MET mathematics curriculum in supporting STEAM skills development, using the Marine Engineering programme at the Regional Maritime University (RMU), Ghana, as a case study. Anchored in STEAM education theory, integrated curriculum perspectives, and employability-oriented skills discourse, the article synthesizes empirical evidence from students and graduates and situates the findings within international research on engineering and vocational education. The findings suggest that while the MET mathematics curriculum provides a strong foundation for technical and analytical skills, it is less effective in explicitly supporting creativity, interdisciplinary integration, and applied problem-solving associated with STEAM. The article argues for a reconceptualization of MET mathematics curricula to move beyond content coverage toward intentional STEAM-aligned pedagogy, assessment, and curriculum integration.

Keywords: MET mathematics, STEAM education, curriculum adequacy, marine engineering, skills development, higher education

REFERENCE

  1. Albanese, M. A. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-Based Learning: A Review of Literature on its outcomes and Implementation Issue (Vol. 68). Academic Medicine.
  2. Bonotto, C. (2103). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 37–55.
  3. Cai, J. & Cifarelli, V.V. (2005). The evolution of mathematical explorations in open-ended problem-solving situations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24(3) DOI: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.007
  4. Cerit, A. G., Zobra, Y., Daveci, D. A. & Tuna, O. (2004). Problem based learning in maritime education: How to design curriculums. Retrieved (11/01/2017) from Research Gate: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228540948
  5. Civil, M. (2002). Everyday mathematics, mathematicians’ mathematics, and school mathematics: Can we bring them together? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 11, 40–62. (Reston: NCTM).
  6. Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113.
  7. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  8. Edathil, S., Ranmuthugala, D., Bowles, M. & Brooks, B. (2014). University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia.
  9. English, L. D. (2009). The changing realities of classroom mathematical problem solving. In L.
  10. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83–106.
  11. Esmonde, I., Blair, K. P., Goldman, S., Martin, L., Jimenez, O., & Pea, R. (2013). Math I am: What we learn from stories that people tell about math in their lives. In B. Bevan, P. Bell, R.
  12. Fey, J. T., Hollenbeck, R. M., & Wray, J. A. (2010). Technology and the mathematics curriculum. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 41–49). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  13. Fisher, D. & Muirhead, P. (2005). Practical Teaching Skills for Maritime Instructors. Malmo, Sweden: WMU Publications.
  14. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. CDbeta press.
  15. Hollenbeck, R. M., Wray, J. A., & Fey, J. T. (2010). Technology and the teaching of mathematics. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 265–276). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  16. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Jurian, M., Chiotoroiu, L. & Buibas, M. (2006). Work in progress: E-learning impact on Romanian maritime education. Proceedings of ‘The Frontiers in Education Conference’, 36th Annual (pp. 27-28), IEEE.
  18. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In A. Scheonfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Klingbeil, N., Mercer, R., Rattan, K., Raymer, M. & Reynolds, D. (2005). Work in progress-the WSU model for engineering mathematics education. Proceedings of ‘The Frontiers in Education Conference’, 35th Annual, IEEE.
  20. Kohn, A. (2001). Five Reasons to Stop Saying “Good Job”! Retrieved (10/12/2018) from https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/five-reasons-stop-saying-good-job/
  21. Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell. K. (2010). Tee/IS and mobile phones. Washington, D. C.: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
  22. Lingefjard, T. (2002). To study mathematics in an engineering programme: The Third Swedish Mathematics Education Research Seminar, Norrköping, Sweden, January 23-25, 2002, http://www.mai.liu.se/SMDF/madeng.htm
  23. McDermott, R., & Webber, V. (1998). When is math or science? In J. G. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 321–340). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  24. McKeown, R., Hopkins, C. A., Rizi, R. & Chrystalbridge, M. (2002). Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit. Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee.
  25. Oliva, P.F. (1997). Developing-Curriculum. Retrieved (10/12/2018) from https://www.ebay.com/p/Developing-Curriculum-by-Peter-F-Oliva-1997-Hardcover/155640
  26. Schoenfeld, A. (2007). Problem solving in the United States, 1970–2008: Research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 537–551.
  27. Schoenfeld, A. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of what works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13–21.
  28. Schoenfeld, A. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 1, 253–286.
  29. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80.
  30. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1),19–28.
  31. Silver, E. A, & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students.
  32. Strang, S. (2004). “Linear algebra: A happy chance to apply mathematics”, Proc. Int. Congress on Mathematics. Education (ICME-10), Denmark (2004).
  33. Usiskin, Z. (2010). The current state of the school mathematics curriculum. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 25–40). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  34. Wijers, M., Jonker, V., & Kerstens, K. (2008). MobileMath: The phone, the game and the math. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Game Based Learning, Barcelona (pp. 507–516)