Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 35–61 | Cite as

More than meets the eye: patterns and shifts in middle school mathematics teachers’ descriptions of models

  • Michelle H. Wilkerson
  • Alfredo Bautista
  • Roger G. Tobin
  • Bárbara M. Brizuela
  • Ying Cao
Article

Abstract

Modeling is a major topic of interest in mathematics education. However, the field’s definition of models is diverse. Less is known about what teachers identify as mathematical models, even though it is teachers who ultimately enact modeling activities in the classroom. In this study, we asked nine middle school teachers with a variety of academic backgrounds and teaching experience to collect data related to one familiar physical phenomenon, cooling liquid. We then asked each participant to construct a model of that phenomenon, describe why it was a model, and identify whether a variety of artifacts representing the phenomenon also counted as models during a semi-structured interview. We sought to identify: what do mathematics teachers attend to when describing what constitutes a model? And, how do their attentions shift as they engage in different activities related to models? Using content analysis, we documented what features and purposes teachers attended to when describing a mathematical model. When constructing their own model, they focused on the visual form of the model and what quantitative information it should include. When deciding whether particular representational artifacts constituted models, they focused on how the representations reflected the system under study, and what purposes those representations could serve in further understanding that system. These findings suggest teachers may have multiple understandings of models, which are active at different times and reflect different perspectives. This has implications for research, teacher education, and professional development.

Keywords

Mathematical modeling Mathematical models Middle school Teacher knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant #DRL-0962863. We would like to thank Ken Wright, the anonymous reviewers, and the Editor of JMTE for their feedback on prior versions of this manuscript. Findings presented in this paper represent the work of the authors and not necessarily the funding agency, colleagues, or reviewers.

References

  1. Ärlebäck, J. B. (2009). Towards understanding teachers’ beliefs and affects about mathematical modelling. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergna, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 2096–2105). Lyon, France: INRP.Google Scholar
  2. Barbosa, J. C. (2006). Mathematical modelling in classroom: A socio-critical and discursive perspective. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(3), 293–301. doi: 10.1007/BF02652812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bautista, A., Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Tobin, R., & Brizuela, M. B. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ ideas about mathematical models: A diverse landscape. PNA, 9(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Biembengut, M. S., & Hein, N. (2010). Mathematical modeling: implications for teaching. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 481–490). New York: Springer, US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. (2006). Experiences from an in-service course for upper secondary teachers. ZDM, 38(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum, W. (2002). ICMI study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education: Discussion document. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(1/2), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Blum, W., & Leiß’s, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects—State trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borromeo-Ferri, R., & Blum, W. (2010). Insights into teachers’ unconscious behaviour in modeling contexts. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 531–538). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1.Google Scholar
  11. Borromeo-Ferri, R., & Lesh, R. (2013). Should interpretation systems be considered to be models if they only function implicitly? In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 57–66). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, O. (2007). Mathematical modelling in high school mathematics: Teachers’ thinking and practice. In P. L. Galbraith, H-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (Vol. 10, pp. 325–332). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Oliveira, A. M. P., & Barbosa, J. C. (2013). Mathematical modeling and the teachers’ tensions. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 511–517). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225. doi: 10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28–60). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doerr, H. M. (2007). What knowledge do teachers need for teaching mathematics through applications and modeling? In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in math education (New ICMI study series (Vol. 10, pp. 69–78). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2006). Middle grade teachers’ learning through students’ engagement with modeling tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–32. doi: 10.1007/s10857-006-9004-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erdogan, A. (2010). Primary teacher education students’ ability to use functions as modeling tools. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4518–4522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Preamble: From models to modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 7–22). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammer, D. M., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Holmquist, M., & Lingefjard, T. (2003). Mathematical modeling in teacher education. In Q.-X. Ya, W. Blum, S. K. Housten, & Q.-Y. Jiang (Eds.), Mathematical modeling in education and culture (ICTMA 10) (pp. 197–208). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving mathematics at work: The need for techno-mathematical literacies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Imbrie, P., Zawojewski, J., Hjalmarson, M., Diefes-Dux, H., Follman, D., & Capobianco, B. (2004, June). Model eliciting activities: An in class approach to improving interest and persistence of women in engineering. Paper presented at 2004 annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/12973.
  28. Izsak, A. (2004). Students’ coordination of knowledge when learning to model physical situations. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 81–128. doi: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiser, G., Blomhøj, M., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Towards a didactical theory for mathematical modelling. ZDM, 38(2), 82–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser, G., & Maaß, K. (2007). Modelling in lower secondary mathematics classroom—Problems and opportunities. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in math education (New ICMI study series (Vol. 10, pp. 275–284). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuntze, S. (2011). In-service and prospective teachers’ views about modelling tasks in the mathematics classroom—Results of a quantitative empirical study. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo-Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 279–288). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Lesh, R., & Caylor, B. (2007). Introduction to the special issue: Modeling as application versus modeling as a way to create mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(3), 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003a). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003b). A modeling perspective on teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 125–139). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Lingefjärd, T. (2002). Mathematical modeling for preservice teachers: A problem from anesthesiology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(2), 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maaß, K. (2009). What are teachers’ beliefs about effective mathematics teaching? In J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry, & N.-Y. Wong (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives: National and cross-national studies (pp. 141–162). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Maaß, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maaß, K. (2011). How can teachers’ beliefs affect their professional development? ZDM, 43(4), 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maaß, K., Artigue, M., Doorman, L. M., Krainer, K. & Ruthven, K. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching [Special Issue]. ZDM, 45(6), 779–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maaß, K., & Gurlitt, J. (2011). LEMA—Professional development of teachers in relation to mathematical modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo-Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 629–639). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ng, K. E. D. (2013). Pre-service secondary school teachers’ knowledge in mathematical modelling—A case study. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 427–436). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Draft PISA 2015 mathematics framework. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264190511-en.
  46. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2002). The microevolution of mathematical knowledge: The case of randomness. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 453–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rees, W. G., & Viney, C. (1988). On cooling tea and coffee. American Journal of Physics, 56(5), 434–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, J. P., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soon, T. L., & Cheng, A. K. (2013). Pre-service secondary school teachers’ knowledge in mathematical modelling—A case study. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 373–384). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Sriraman, B., & Kaiser, G. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310. doi: 10.1007/s11858-007-0056-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teixidor-i-Bigas, M., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. (2013). Integrating disciplinary perspectives: The Poincaré Institute for Mathematics Education. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(3), 519–561.Google Scholar
  53. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowledge in mathematical modeling of school word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wagner, J. F. (2010). A transfer-in-pieces consideration of the perception of structure in the transfer of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 443–479. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.505138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle H. Wilkerson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alfredo Bautista
    • 4
  • Roger G. Tobin
    • 3
  • Bárbara M. Brizuela
    • 2
  • Ying Cao
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of EducationTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics and AstronomyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  4. 4.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations