Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 1–2, pp 187–200 | Cite as

Students’ interpretations and reasoning about phenomena with negative rates of change throughout a model development sequence

  • Jonas B. Ärlebäck
  • Helen M. Doerr
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this article, we examine how a sequence of modeling activities supported the development of students’ interpretations and reasoning about phenomena with negative average rates of change in different physical phenomena. Research has shown that creating and interpreting models of changing physical phenomena is difficult, even for university level students. Furthermore, students’ reasoning about models of phenomena with negative rates of change has received little attention in the research literature. In this study, 35 students preparing to study engineering participated in a 6-week instructional unit on average rate of change that used a sequence of modeling activities. Using an analysis of the students’ work, our results show that the sequence of modeling activities was effective for nearly all students in reasoning about motion with negative rates along a straight path. Almost all students were successful in constructing graphs of changing phenomena and their associated rate graphs in the contexts of motion, light dispersion and a discharging capacitor. Some students encountered new difficulties in interpreting and reasoning with negative rates in the contexts of light dispersion, and new graphical representations emerged in students’ work in the context of the discharging capacitor with its underlying exponential structure. The results suggest that sequences of modeling activities offer a structured approach for the instruction of advanced mathematical content.

Keywords

Model development sequences Modeling Negative rates of change Physical phenomena 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ärlebäck, J. B., Doerr, H. M., & O’Neil, A. H. (2013). A modeling perspective on interpreting rates of change in context. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(4), 314–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education: Intellectual and attitudinal changes. (pp. 73–96). New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, W., Galbraith, P., Henn, H.-W., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and applications in mathematics education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E. E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, M. P. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 114–162). Providence: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in he primary school: children’s construction of a consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. English, L. D., Ärlebäck, J. B., & Mousoulides, N. G. (2016). Reflections on progress in mathematical modelling research. In A. Gutierrez, G. Leder & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: The journey continues (pp. 383–413). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. U. (2011). What is rate? Does context or representation matter? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(4), 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In R. A. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (ICTMA 13) (pp. 13–41). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hjalmarson, M. A., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Moore, T. J. (2008). Designing model development sequences for engineering. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux & K. J. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students (pp. 37–54). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Ibrahim, B., & Rebello, N. (2012). Representational task formats and problem solving strategies in kinematics and work. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 8(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, H. L. (2012). Reasoning about variation in the intensity of change in covarying quantities involved in rate of change. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Julie, C., & Mudaly, V. (2007). Mathematical modelling of social issues in school mathematics in South Africa. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 503–510). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaput, J. J., & Roschelle, J. (1996). SimCalc: MathWorlds [computer program].  Fairhaven, MA:  Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education.Google Scholar
  18. Koellner-Clark, K., & Lesh, R. A. (2003). Whodunit? Exploring proportional reasoning through the footprint problem. School Science and Mathematics, 103(2), 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lesh, R. A., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003). Model development sequences. In R. A. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 35–58). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Lesh, R. A., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A. E., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Lobato, J., Hohensee, C., Rhodehamel, B., & Diamond, J. (2012). Using student reasoning to inform the development of conceptual learning goals: the case of quadratic functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(2), 85–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 175–194). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  24. Nagle, C., Moore-Russo, D., Vilietti, J., & Martin, K. (2013). Calculus students’ and instructors’ conceptualization of slope: A comparison across academic levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1491–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ function understanding. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roorda, G., Vos, P., & Goedhart, M. J. (2015). An actor-oriented transfer perspective on high school student’ development of the use of procedures to solve problems on rate of change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 863–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2), 229–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction—the Wiskobas project. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Yoon, C., Dreyfus, T., & Thomas, M. (2010). How high is the tramping track? Mathematising and applying in a calculus model-eliciting activity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options