Upper Secondary Perspectives on Applications and Modelling

  • Gloria Stillman
Part of the New ICMI Study Series book series (NISS, volume 10)

Abstract

Several issues raised in this study are of heightened importance at the upper secondary level. There are many tensions at this level of schooling contributing to a reluctance by teachers to teach mathematics by modelling and a scepticism by many students that modelling is central to their mathematical learning. Several of these tensions are raised as the issues are discussed in this chapter. The challenge is for modelling to be seen as an essential embedded element of mathematics, mathematics teaching and assessment whether students are in academic, technical or general education courses.

Keywords

Secondary Level Modelling Competency External Examination ICMI Study Secondary Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonius, S. (2004). Validity and competencies in modelling based project examination. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 9–16). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  2. Artaud, M. (2004). Contributions from the anthropological theory of didactics. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 17–22). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  3. Arzaello, F., Pezzi, G., & Robutti, O. (2004). Modelling body motion: An approach to functions using measure instruments. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 23–28). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  4. Burkhardt, H. (2004). Establishing modelling in the curriculum: Barriers and levers. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 53–58). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, O. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions and teaching strategies that facilitate mathematical modelling. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 65–70). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  6. Clatworthy, N.J. & Galbraith, P.J. (1989). Mathematical modelling: An attack on conformity. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal 3(2), 88–106.Google Scholar
  7. Henning, H. & Keune, M. (2004). Levels of modelling competencies. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 115–120). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  8. Kadijevich, D. (2004). How to attain a wider implementation of mathematical modelling in everyday mathematics education?. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 133–138). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  9. Kutzler, B. (2000). The algebraic calculator as a pedagogical tool for teaching mathematics. In A. Gagatsis & G. Makrides (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2 nd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematics Education, (pp. 142–160). Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  10. Lakoma, E. (2004). Modelling in mathematics education — The case of probability and statistics teaching. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 139–144). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  11. Lamon, S., Parker, W., & Houston, K. (2003). Mathematical modelling: A way of life. In S. Lamon, W. Parker, & K. Houston (Eds.), Mathematical Modelling: A Way of Life, (pp. ix–x). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Legé J. (2004). “To model, or let them model?” That is the question! In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 145–150). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  13. Ontario Ministry of Education (2000). The Ontario curriculum: Grades 11 and 12 Mathematics 2000. Toronto.Google Scholar
  14. Palm, T. (2002). The Realism of Mathematical School Tasks — Features and Consequences (Research reports, No. 2, in Mathematics Education). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Palm, T. & Burman, L. (2004). Reality in mathematics assessment: An analysis of task-reality concordance in Finnish and Swedish national assessments. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education 9(3), 1–33.Google Scholar
  16. Roulet, G. & Suurtamm, C. (2004). Modelling: Subject images and teacher practice. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 229–234). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  17. Stillman, G. (2001). The impact of school-based assessment on the implementation of a modelling/applications-based curriculum: An Australian example. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications 20(3), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stillman, G. (2002). Assessing Higher Order Mathematical Thinking through Applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Stillman, G. (2004). Sustained curriculum change: The example of the implementation of applications and modelling curricula in two Australian states. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 261–266). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  20. Strässer, R. (2004). Everyday instruments: On the use of mathematics. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education, (pp. 267–272). Dortmund: University of Dortmund.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria Stillman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations