Mathematics Education Research Journal 2010, Vol. 22, No.

2, 1-6

Editorial

Researching Applications and Mathematical

Modelling in Mathematics Learning and
Teaching
Gloria Stillman, Jill Brown and Peter Galbraith

Research into learning and teaching using mathematical applications and

modelling have been part of the agenda of the international mathematics
education community for more than 25 years including the four yearly
International Congresses on Mathematics Education (ICME). Since 1983 the
biennial conferences of the International Community for the Teaching of
Mathematical Modelling and Applications (ICTMA) and the related ICTMA
series of research volumes (e.g., Lesh, Galbraith, Haines, & Hurford, 2010)
have been major sources of exchange of research ideas and growth that
continue to push forward the research envelope. In July 2011, ICTMA 15 will
be held in Melbourne. The vitality of this research field has been further
evident in recent special issues in international journals (e.g., Biehler & Leiss,
2010; Kaiser, BlomhØj, & Sriraman, 2006) and the launch of new journals in
the field (e.g., Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application from the
Reference Center for Mathematical Modelling in Teaching (CREMM) at the
University of Blumenau, Brazil). Over the years there have been many
different models of curriculum incorporating this approach to learning and
teaching varying from complete courses or significant components of
courses (e.g., Queensland Studies Authority, 2010), to the inclusion of some
aspects of mathematical modelling within a wider curriculum (e.g., Ministry
of Education, 2006). Research into teaching and learning through
applications and mathematical modelling has been ongoing in the
Australasian region “because of its potential to add another dimension to
the mathematical experience and skill of learners” (Stillman, Brown, &
Galbraith, 2008, p. 141) and its inclusion in various curriculum documents.
The 14th ICMI study on applications and modelling in mathematics (Henn
& Blum, 2004; Blum, Galbraith, Henn, & Niss, 2007) provided a significant
documentation of the state of the art in this field of research and practice and
a boost to research generally at the time which has had an ongoing ripple
effect. Against this backdrop, this special issue showcases some of the latest
international research on this topic including research from Australasia.
It is important to note that mathematical modelling does not have a
unique interpretation within educational practice. This is almost inevitable
given the range of contexts and practitioners that exist internationally, but it
does provide a cautionary tale for those who want to encompass its meaning
and purpose within their own specific preferences. It is therefore important
that readers note carefully the assumptions and intentions that characterise
the work of individual authors, including those represented in this issue.
2 Stillman, Brown, & Galbraith

Generally speaking two broad philosophies can be identified as drivers of

modelling initiatives. One of these uses practical problem situations to
motivate and introduce particular mathematical content, the learning of
which remains the first priority. The other takes the view that for students to
spend years learning mathematics without any sense of how to apply it in
the world around them, is inappropriate. This approach actively seeks to
teach a modelling process, within which learned mathematical knowledge
can be productively employed. Within this approach the search for valid
solutions to genuine problems cannot live entirely inside a conventional
classroom (see discussion below in relation to Peled’s article).
Key issues that are addressed in this special issue of MERJ include:
• Epistemology of applications and mathematical modelling (Peled);
• Goals of applications and modelling and their curricular embedding
(Peled; Perrenet & Adan);
• Implementation (Klymchuk, Zverkova, Gruenwald, & Sauerbier)
and evaluation of applications and modelling curricula in practice
(Perrenet & Adan);
• Technology with and for applications and modelling (Geiger, Goos,
& Faragher) including technology as agent provocateur;
• Modelling competencies and beliefs (Houston et al.);
• Classroom practice with respect to teaching/learning mathematical
modelling and applications (Chinnappan; English; Geiger et al.;
Klymchuk et al.; Lingefjärd & Meier; Yoon, Dreyfus, & Thomas);
• Significance of prior mathematical knowledge for successful
modelling (Yoon et al.);
• Modelling for deepening conceptual understanding (Yoon et al.);
• Conceptions held by undergraduate students concerning the place
of modelling within their mathematical experience (Houston et al.).
As Lingefjärd and Meier point out “working with mathematical
modelling tasks gives rich opportunities to try another teaching role” which
the teachers in their study interpreted as acting as a manager fostering
independence preserving team work of groups and individuals. This is in
stark contrast to classrooms where “teachers solve all the interesting issues
for kids and present them already resolved” (Hanner, James, & Rohlfing,
2002, p. 106). “Classes applying Mathematical Modelling provide various
opportunities for mathematical thinking, knowledge search, and experiences
in understanding, judgement, and interpretation of problems” (Kim & Kim,
2010, p. 118).
On the other hand, the teacher who was the focus of the study by
Chinnappan took a more directing approach as he responded to the
challenge of the age-old conundrum for lower secondary school students:
“Why do we need to learn algebra?” On the spur of the moment he
attempted to exploit what is a plausible authentic context, the making and
sale of toy soldiers from the chewing gum stuck under the student desks in
the school. The serendipitous nature of the lesson appears to be the reason
for high scaffolding by this teacher of the model construction by the
students through questions and prompts resulting in a high volume of
teacher talk in relation to student talk. Nevertheless, the author is able to
demonstrate that the Chinnappan and Thomas (2003) framework was able to
identify “important elements” in the lesson “that need to be orchestrated for
Editorial 3

the model to emerge”. The modelling process that was being engaged in by
both students and teacher was clearly a vehicle to mediate the consolidation
of content but in the process demonstrate the utility of that mathematical
content. In this context, the classical view of orchestration is evident as the
teacher manipulates the lesson elements to construct the model he perceives
will consolidate learning; however, let us not ignore the more serendipitous
nature of the choice of direction and task for the lesson that the teacher
spontaneously took onboard—teacher moves which are more improvisatory
and more often typical of the jazz genre (Tanner et al., 2010).
Peled raises interesting and important issues in her thought provoking
(Fish) Food for Thought. The significance of these is not widely enough
understood. Peled’s approach emphasises the basic modelling fundamental,
that (possible alternative) assumptions need to be articulated at the start of a
problem, and the mathematics employed is influenced by these. In thinking
about the examples used in this article, a couple of other 'real' real-life
examples come to mind. One is that young children are natural modellers -
when sharing lollies in the playground "2 = 1" is often an acceptable
mathematical equivalence based on size. Unfortunately, a lot of real life
understanding of young children is supplanted by school mathematics. The
issues Peled highlights have a very practical realisation in the Australian
taxation system, when considering personal income tax on the one hand and
GST/VAT on the other. For example,
1. John hires a plumber for a job that costs $250 of which $25 is GST? Bill
hires the plumber for a job whose total cost is $375. How much of this is
GST?
2. June earns a net income of $30 000 and pays tax of $3 600. How much tax
should Janette expect to pay on a net income of $60 000?
Those raised on a celebration of success with Fish and Eel Problems would
likely go automatically into a proportional mode to get the first one right
and the second one wrong - ignoring the social content of the latter
concerning differential tax rates. Peled’s article also touches on the notion of
authenticity. Some individuals have claimed that once a problem from the
outside world is introduced into a classroom situation its authenticity is lost
- almost by definition. What they are doing is privileging their conception of
what school mathematics, and life in classrooms is about, and making
modelling fit the stereotype and subject to associated restrictive practices.
What modelling, properly conducted can do, is to challenge some of those
norms and assumptions, mathematical, situational, and pedagogical. Our
perception is that Peled is taking such an approach, in other words,
challenging readers to confront some sacred cows!
In application questions posed in classrooms the issue of whether or not
students undertaking the task are familiar with the context is regarded as a
significant one. However, as Tourniaire (1986) pointed out previously, it is
not simply a matter of being familiar with a particular task context but
rather familiarity with the use of the particular mathematical concepts and
procedures in that context that allows some, but not others, to access these
tasks. This point is particularly pertinent to the small study by Klymchuk et
al. in this issue where university students had difficulty with what, to their
lecturers, was a relatively straightforward calculus application.
4 Stillman, Brown, & Galbraith

English takes a modelling as vehicle approach as she uses modelling

situations to provide opportunities for Grade 1 students to construct and
develop ideas related to making sense of data. The three classes of students
in this study were required to identify attributes that could be used to
classify given sets of data and use these attributes to classify the data.
Furthermore, the student groups were to present their data using a
representation of their choice. English notes the importance of task design in
mathematical modeling. Her tasks are explicitly set to challenge and extend
the mathematical reasoning of students as they engage with data. Statistics
of the world around us are increasingly complex but this study
demonstrates that young students are able to engage with, and make sense
of, some of this complexity that is part of their world. English calls for all
students from the early years onwards to have such experiences.
With respect to technology use in modelling activities, Geiger et al. in
their article confirm that “student-student-technology related activity takes
place during all phases of the mathematical modelling cycle” rather than as
they had theorised previously (see Galbraith, Renshaw, Goos, & Geiger,
2003) “only at the solve juncture”. This is in keeping with the position taken
by other researchers (e.g., Galbraith, Stillman, Brown & Edwards, 2007).
Geiger et al. also provide classroom examples where one teacher
deliberately uses CAS-enabled technology to provoke learning with the
technology being given the role of agent provocateur whilst the other
teacher incidentally gave the technology this role by grasping what was
perceived as a teachable moment. These examples are seen by the authors as
a case of “CAS mediating productive social interaction within the context of
mathematical modelling activity”.
In a study drawing data from five national contexts, Houston et al.
explore conceptions held by undergraduate students concerning
mathematics. They identified common responses across all research settings
that formed a hierarchical ordering of the student conceptions. Abstract and
modelling conceptions represented two respective viewpoints at higher
levels of the hierarchy, which provided stepping-stones to a view of
mathematics as a way of life, for those reaching this higher plane. The
authors consider implications for teaching that aim to facilitate such
transformations of student appreciation of the purpose and power of
mathematics. The necessity of graduates developing such appreciations is
highlighted in the rationale for Eindhoven University of Technology
introducing a modelling track into its undergraduate education as described
by Perrenet and Adan in their article. This is imperative for graduates being
able to tackle the multi-disciplinary problems they will be confronted with
and have to mathematise in their future employment. Their case study
shows that a mathematical modelling sub-program, even when embedded
in a more abstract curriculum, should be taught and learnt in realistic
contexts. Their careful profiling and evaluation of the competencies
developed indicate that such a program has academic integrity.
Yoon et al. use a model eliciting activity to investigate whether these
“are more productive instructional activities than application problems”.
Model eliciting activities are classroom activities “designed to mimic the
kinds of real world problems encountered in … mathematics-heavy fields”.
Previously it was claimed that the timing of implementation impacted their
Editorial 5

effectiveness in “encouraging students to develop their own [conceptual]

understandings through mathematising” with implementation pre-
instruction in the mathematical topics being best to fulfil this role; whilst
post-instruction they served only as an opportunity to apply knowledge. As
this small study demonstrates, in this instance the use of a tramping model
eliciting activity after the participants had completed instruction in
integration did not ensure they could approach this task as an application
task. Instead, all four participants solved the problem by mathematising the
context. In terms of being able to use prior mathematical knowledge, this
study showed that knowledge gained in one context (i.e., integration in the
context of speed) is not necessarily transferable to another and participants’
lack of representational versatility limited their use of prior mathematical
skills. Clearly fluency in using mathematical tools was problematic for the
participants in this study; however, the authors point out “the modelling
activity … gave them an opportunity to build up their conceptual
understandings through the iterative process of mathematising”.
At this point in time it is relevant to consider mathematical modelling in
relation to the proposed National Mathematics Curriculum for Australia.
The document rationale (Australian, Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting
Authority, 2010, p. 1) includes “developing … problem solving skills to
enable students to respond to familiar and unfamiliar situations by
employing mathematical strategies to make informed decisions and solve
problems efficiently” and “all students … be able to apply their
mathematical understanding creatively and efficiently”. Among the aims of
this curriculum is to “ensure that students are confident, creative users and
communicators of mathematics, able to investigate, represent, and interpret
situations in their personal and work lives, and as active citizens” and
“recognise connections between the areas of mathematics and other
disciplines” (p. 1). Additionally, recommendations for different levels of
schooling include: “children … pose basic mathematical questions about
their world, identify simple strategies to investigate solutions, and
strengthen their reasoning to solve personally meaningful problems” (p. 4);
“students studying coherent, meaningful and purposeful mathematics that
is relevant to their lives” (p. 4); and “students need an understanding of the
connections between the mathematics concepts and their application in their
world in contexts that are directly related to topics of relevance and interest
to them” (p. 5). All these purposes, and others listed under content detail
and implications for teaching and learning, can be addressed directly
through aptly targeted initiatives in mathematical modelling and
applications – indeed some uniquely so.

References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Mathematics:
Draft consultation version 1.1.0 Australian Curriculum. Available from
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Documents/Mathematics curriculum.pdf
Biehler, R., & Leiss, D. (Eds.). (2010). Empirical research on mathematical modelling
[Special Issue]. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik (Journal for Didactics of
Mathematics), 31(1).
Blum, W., Galbraith, P., Henn, H-W., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and
applications in mathematics education - The 14th ICMI study. New York: Springer.
6 Stillman, Brown, & Galbraith

Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2003). Technology-enriched
classrooms: Some implications for teaching applications and modelling. In Q.
Ye, W. Blum, S. K. Houston, & Q. Jiang (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education
and culture (pp. 111-125). Chichester, UK: Horwood.
Galbraith, P., Stillman, G., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). Facilitating middle
secondary modelling competencies. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S.
Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics (pp. 130-
140). Chichester, UK: Horwood.
Hanner, S., James. E., & Rohlfing, M. (2002). Classification models across grades. In
R. Lehrer, & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 99-117).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Henn, H-W., & Blum, W. (Eds.). (2004). ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in
mathematics education. Dortmund, Germany: University of Dortmund.
Kaiser, G., BlomhØj, M., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematical modelling and
applications: Empirical and theoretical perspectives [Special Issue]. Zentralblatt
für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2).
Kim, S. H., & Kim, S. (2010). The effects of mathematical modeling on creative
production ability and self-directed learning attitude. Asia Pacific Educational
Review, 11(2), 109-120.
Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C. R., & Hurford, A. (Eds.). (2010). Modeling
students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13. New York: Springer.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Mathematics syllabus: Secondary. Singapore: Author.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). Senior syllabus: Mathematics C 2008. Brisbane:
Author.
Stillman, G., Brown, J., & Galbraith, P. (2008). Research into the teaching and learning
of applications and modelling in Australasia. In H. Forgasz, A. Barkatsas, A.
Bishop, B. Clarke, S. Keast, W. T. Seah, & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Research in
mathematics education in Australasia 2004-2007 (p. 141-164). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Tanner, H., Jones, S., Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactive whiteboards
and all that jazz: Analysing classroom activity with interactive technologies. In
L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics
education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia, Freemantle, Vol. 2, pp. 547-554).
Adelaide: MERGA.
Tourniaire, F. (1986). Proportions in elementary school. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 17(4), 401-412.

Authors
Gloria Stillman, School of Education (Victoria), Aquinas Campus, Australian
Catholic University, PO Box 650, Ballarat, VIC 3350. Email:
<gloria.stillman@acu.edu.au>

Jill Brown, School of Education (Victoria), St Patrick’s Campus, Australian Catholic

University, Locked Bag 4115, Fitzroy, VIC 3065. Email: <jill.brown@acu.edu.au>

Peter Galbraith, School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD

4072. Email: <p.galbraith@uq.edu.au>