Cetinkaya2016 PDF

Mathematical Thinking and Learning
ISSN: 1098-6065 (Print) 1532-7833 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20
Pre-service Teachers’ Developing Conceptions

about the Nature and Pedagogy of Mathematical
Modeling in the Context of a Mathematical
Modeling Course
Bulent Cetinkaya, Mahmut Kertil, Ayhan Kursat Erbas, Himmet Korkmaz,

Cengiz Alacaci & Erdinc Cakiroglu
To cite this article: Bulent Cetinkaya, Mahmut Kertil, Ayhan Kursat Erbas, Himmet
Korkmaz, Cengiz Alacaci & Erdinc Cakiroglu (2016) Pre-service Teachers’ Developing
Conceptions about the Nature and Pedagogy of Mathematical Modeling in the Context of
a Mathematical Modeling Course, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18:4, 287-314, DOI:
10.1080/10986065.2016.1219932
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1219932
Published online: 10 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmtl20
Download by: [Temple University Libraries] Date: 10 October 2016, At: 23:38
MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING
2016, VOL. 18, NO. 4, 287–314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1219932
Pre-service Teachers’ Developing Conceptions about the Nature

and Pedagogy of Mathematical Modeling in the Context of a
Mathematical Modeling Course
Bulent Cetinkaya a, Mahmut Kertil b, Ayhan Kursat Erbas a
, Himmet Korkmazc,
Cengiz Alacaci d, and Erdinc Cakiroglu a
a
Middle East Technical University; bMarmara University; cAdiyaman University; dIstanbul Medeniyet University
ABSTRACT
Adopting a multitiered design-based research perspective, this study exam-
ines pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ developing conceptions
about (a) the nature of mathematical modeling in simulations of “real life”
problem solving, and (b) pedagogical principles and strategies needed to
teach mathematics through modeling. Unlike other studies that have focused
on single-topic and lesson-sized research sites, a course-sized research site
was used in this study. Having been through several iterations over three
teaching semesters, the 15-week long course was implemented with 25 pre-
service secondary mathematics teachers. Findings revealed that pre-service
teachers developed ideas about the nature of mathematical modeling invol-
ving what mathematical modeling is, the relationship between mathematical
modeling and meaningful understanding, and the nature of mathematical
modeling tasks. They also realized the changing roles of teachers during
modeling implementations and diversity in students’ ways of thinking. The
researchers’ conceptual development, on the other hand, involved realizing
the critical aspect of the “teacher role” played by the instructor during
modeling implementations, and the need for more experience of modeling
implementations for pre-service teachers.
Researchers have highlighted different perspectives and traditions regarding the teaching and learn-
ing of applications and modeling in school mathematics (see Blum, 2015; Galbraith, 2012; Kaiser,
Blomhøj, & Sriraman, 2006; Kaiser & Sriraman, 2006). According to R. Lesh (personal communica-
tion, 16 March 2016), there are significant differences between (a) mathematics education research-
ers who focus on teaching (traditionally taught) mathematics so as to be useful, and (b) mathematics
education researchers who use modeling as a way for students to develop their own mathematical
ways of thinking. While the latter tends to emphasize modeling cycles and the development of
intuitions, the former tends to emphasize mathematical formalizations and the ways that mathema-
tical models are sorted, integrated, and revised. Further, while the former group tends to imagine
that they already understand what it means for students to understand the most important concepts
students are expected to learn, the latter group are more likely to focus on investigating; (a) what the
most important big ideas are, (b) what it means to understand them, (c) how these understandings
develop, and (d) how the development can be documented and assessed. Yet, even with these
differences, a major goal of mathematics education in many countries has been to emphasize models
and applications in their curricula materials (Kaiser, 2014). However, modeling tasks are cognitively
complex and demanding for students (Blum, 2011; Kaiser, 2014).
CONTACT Bulent Cetinkaya, PhD bcetinka@metu.edu.tr Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Education,
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Ankara 06800, Turkey.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hmtl.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
288 B. CETINKAYA ET AL.
Teaching applications and modeling also creates new challenges and difficulties for teachers
(Blum, 2015). Consequently, studies have shown that teachers may avoid using modeling activities
in their classrooms (Burkhardt, 2006; Henn, 2007; Maaß, 2005; Oliveira & Barbosa, 2013; Schmidt,
2011). These researchers have thus emphasized the need to create opportunities for developing pre-
service and in-service teachers’ competencies about modeling (Blum, 2015; Niss, Blum, & Galbraith,
2007). Yet, although various studies have reported pedagogical competencies and knowledge that
teachers need during the implementation of modeling problems in classrooms (e.g., Borromeo Ferri
& Blum, 2010; Doerr, 2006; Doerr & English, 2006; Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Kaiser, Schwarz, &
Tiedemann, 2013; Kaiser & Stender, 2013; Tan & Ang, 2015), the need for further research
describing teachers’ competencies to use modeling in teaching have been voiced by many researchers
(Blum, 2011, 2015; Doerr, 2007; Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Kaiser, 2014; Lingefjärd, 2007; Oliveira &
Barbosa, 2013; Vorhölter, Kaiser, & Borromeo Ferri, 2014).
Engaging pre-service teachers with different model development activities involving various big
ideas over a course-sized experience can allow researchers to observe, document, and assess how pre-
service teachers might think about the connections among ideas and how basic skills are related to
the big ideas. Although Brady, Lesh, and Sevis (2015) have developed a course-sized research site for
investigating the development of students’ and teachers’ understanding about modeling, the field of
mathematics still generally lacks research-based knowledge about how to design innovative content
courses aimed at developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge for teaching (Superfine & Wagreich,
2010). For example, Lingefjärd (2007) reported that, in the context of Sweden, many universities do
not offer courses on mathematical modeling for pre-service teachers, and he strongly emphasized the
need for such courses. Yet, to create such courses, more needs to be known about the understanding
and competencies needed for the effective teaching of modeling and applications (Kuntze, Siller, &
Vogl, 2013; Niss et al., 2007). According to Brady and colleagues (2015), course-sized research
studies are needed that focus on models and modeling perspective-based conceptions of teaching,
learning, and problem solving (e.g., see Lesh, Carmona, & Moore, 2010) because such studies:
require new design structures that can be deployed over a course-sized experience . . . require attention to
students’ and teachers’ ways of unpacking the models created in [model eliciting activities], incorporating them
into normal classroom discourse; integrating them into shared canonical ways of thinking and generating
mathematical interpretations; and linking these models and big ideas with a host of techniques, tools, and
procedural skills. (Brady et al., 2015, p. 60)
Note that it is challenging for researchers to conduct such studies involving the course design and
implementation process over several iterations, the handling of large volume data obtained in
course-sized contexts, and the reporting of it. Because the research questions and findings cannot
be considered independently from the course design process, methodological difficulties arise in
reporting the focus of the study.
The course referred to in this study was designed with the goal of improving pre-service teachers’
knowledge about the nature of mathematical modeling and to develop the necessary knowledge,
skills, and attitudes in order to use mathematical modeling in teaching mathematics. The purpose of
this study, at the teacher level, was to examine pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ devel-
oping conceptions and big ideas about mathematical modeling, and the pedagogical principles
needed to teach mathematics through modeling as they engaged in the course. The conceptions
should be expected to include “conscious or subconscious beliefs, concepts, meanings, rules, mental
images, and preferences” (Thompson, 1992, p. 132). At the teacher level, the following research
questions guided the study:
(1) How do pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions develop throughout the
course about mathematical modeling in simulations of “real life” problem solving, and its
role in teaching and learning mathematics?
MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 289
(2) What conceptions do pre-service secondary mathematics teachers develop throughout the
course about students’ ways of mathematical thinking?
(3) What conceptions do pre-service secondary mathematics teachers develop throughout the
course related to pedagogical principles and the strategies needed to teach mathematics
through modeling?
Teaching mathematics through modeling

It is difficult to describe a common understanding of mathematical modeling among educators
(Erbaş et al., 2014; Galbraith, 2012; Kaiser, Blum, Borromeo Ferri, & Stillman, 2011; Kaiser &
Sriraman, 2006). In the literature, different understandings of modeling have been proposed
depending on the aims of the studies or theoretical perspectives (Kaiser et al., 2011; Kaiser &
Sriraman, 2006). Julie and Mudaly (2007) and Galbraith (2012) described two basic approaches to
mathematical modeling. One focuses on modeling as a vehicle for learning mathematics, while the
other focuses on modeling as content to be taught. According to these researchers, modeling as
“vehicle” means using modeling tasks and processes to enhance the learning of curricular mathe-
matical concepts, while modeling as “content” stresses developing students’ mathematical modeling
competencies and skills along with the learning of mathematical concepts.
This study adopts Lesh and Doerr’s (2003a) models and modeling perspective (MMP) that consider
mathematical modeling as a “pedagogical vehicle” for teaching mathematical concepts in a meaningful
way. It should be noted here that we do not see “vehicle” and “content” approaches as antagonistic, even
though our stance is closer to the former. According to Lesh and Doerr (2003a), while mathematical
models are mathematical descriptions of situations consisting of internal conceptual systems and
representations to externalize them, modeling refers to the process of developing mathematical descrip-
tions for specific situations by using the existing models or developing new ones. Rather than only
asking students to apply already acquired mathematical ideas in relevant systems, MMP emphasizes the
eliciting or developing students’ mathematical ideas while they are working on meaningful, real
situations. In this sense MMP demands a shift in perspective from modeling as application (i.e., realizing
mathematics by first teaching what is to be learned and then applying these in realistic situations), to
modeling as a way to create mathematics (i.e., mathematizing reality by first getting students engaged
with simulations of “real life” problem-solving situations in order to develop powerful, sharable, and
reusable conceptual tools to be contextualized and formalized later) (Lesh & Caylor, 2007).
In the present technology-based information age, the workforce is expected to be prepared to solve
problems by understanding complex systems through constructing, describing, explaining, manipulat-
ing, and predicting models (Lesh & Doerr, 2003a). According to MMP, conceptual models develop
along a number of dimensions (e.g., concrete-abstract, intuitive-formal, situated-decontextualized) over
time (Lesh, Doerr, Carmona, & Hjalmarson, 2003). Additionally, teachers’ conceptual models are more
complex than the students’ models and involve students’ ways of thinking and systems of interpreta-
tions for them, knowledge about learning contexts and curricular materials. For teacher development,
MMP is intended to provide teachers with rich learning contexts involving tasks or problem situations
reflecting the multiplicity of students’ models (Schorr & Lesh, 2003). In the current study, we attempted
to provide pre-service teachers with a rich learning context in which they could develop conceptual
models about the use of modeling activities in the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Mathematical modeling in teacher education

Mathematical modeling has been regarded as an integral part of school mathematics curricula in
many countries, and its significance in teaching and learning of mathematics has been emphasized in
the related literature (e.g., Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Kaiser & Maaß, 2007; Lesh & Doerr, 2003a; Stillman
& Galbraith, 2011; Yu & Chang, 2011). However, different perspectives of mathematical modeling
commonly emphasize that teachers’ use of mathematical modeling activities in their day-to-day
teaching is somewhat limited (Blum, 2015; Burkhardt, 2006; Kaiser & Maaß, 2007; Oliveira &
Barbosa, 2013; Schmidt, 2011; Vorhölter et al., 2014). Various barriers have been suggested as
obstacles to the implementation of modeling in the classroom, along with possible levers to tackle
them (Burkhardt, 2006; Maaß, 2005). Among them, a lack of teachers’ professional knowledge about
mathematical modeling has been mentioned as a major reason (Burkhardt, 2006; Kuntze et al.,
2013). Blum (2015) indicated the main barriers, on the part of teachers, as (1) mathematical
modeling and applications make instruction more open and demanding, and therefore assessment
is more complex; (2) mathematical and extra-mathematical knowledge is required, and (3) having
limited knowledge about modeling tasks and/or holding unavailing beliefs about teaching through
modeling. Many teachers themselves do not feel comfortable in using modeling tasks in teaching
mathematics because of their own limited knowledge, or they do not have access to well-designed
activities or enough time to prepare original material (Schmidt, 2011). Burkhardt (2006) identified
several other constraints that result in limited use of modeling: teachers’ habits of practices, teachers’
core beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics, expectations of students and even society, and
restricted professional development.
The aforementioned studies commonly indicate that teachers have limited professional knowl-
edge about the nature of mathematical modeling, and how to use it in the teaching and learning of
mathematics. Such results call for closer attention to the mathematical modeling–related learning
opportunities offered by pre-service and in-service teacher-education programs (Blum, 2015;
Borromeo Ferri & Blum, 2010; Kaiser et al., 2013). Many researchers have emphasized that teachers
should learn about mathematical modeling and that they should have more experience in solving
modeling problems during pre-service and in-service teacher education programs (e.g., Biembengut
& Hein, 2013; Kaiser & Maaß, 2007). In recent years, some studies focused on designing and
developing modeling courses for pre-service teachers (e.g., Borromeo Ferri & Blum, 2010; Kaiser
& Schwarz, 2006; Lingefjärd, 2006; Sevis, 2016) and professional development programs for in-
service teachers (e.g., Blomhøj & Kjeldsen, 2006; Doerr, 2006, 2007; Doerr & English, 2006; Maaß &
Gurlitt, 2009, 2011; Tan & Ang, 2015).
Kaiser and Schwarz (2006) designed a mathematical modeling course for pre-service teachers
where they supervised upper-secondary level students while they were solving modeling problems
developed by mathematicians. They reported positive changes in pre-service teachers’ and high-
school students’ beliefs about mathematical modeling. Similarly, by investigating pre-service tea-
chers’ knowledge needed for writing problems like model-eliciting activities (MEAs), which are
mathematically rich and contextually realistic, Sevis (2016) found that activities that focused on
developing MEAs significantly helped pre-service teachers to develop a better understanding of what
it means for them to (1) bridge in-school and out-of-school mathematics, (2) have deeper conceptual
content knowledge, (3) develop Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge, and (4) develop
interdisciplinary knowledge.
Borromeo Ferri and Blum (2010) suggested four themes as the content of a mathematical modeling
course for pre-service teachers: (1) theoretical knowledge about mathematical modeling and modeling
cycles, (2) ability to solve and create modeling tasks, (3) ability to perform modeling lessons, and
(4) ability to identify students’ modeling processes and their difficulties with these processes. These
themes suggest that the researchers might have adapted an eclectic approach, integrating modeling as
content and modeling as vehicle approaches (Galbraith, 2012; Julie & Mudaly, 2007). Similarly, Maaß
and Gurlitt (2009, 2011) attempted to develop teachers’ knowledge about modeling and using model-
ing in teaching mathematics on each of the following five dimensions: (1) modeling (the nature of
modeling), (2) tasks (selecting appropriate activities), (3) lessons (promoting modeling competencies
by working in groups, classroom discussions, and individual work), (4) assessment (evaluation and
feedback), and (5) reflection (about modeling process and encountered challenges). They reported a
positive contribution of the course toward pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of
mathematical modeling and self-efficacy for modeling (Maaß & Gurlitt, 2011).
According to MMP, teachers’ professional knowledge should be expected to include their own
conceptual models about the multiplicity of students’ ways of thinking, ways of responding to that
thinking, and learning contexts and materials. Just as students’ models develop, teachers’ conceptual
models also can develop along multiple dimensions as they live teaching experiences in various
contexts (Schorr & Lesh, 2003). Teachers’ professional knowledge develops as they revise their
systems of interpretation by taking into account evidence gained through experience (Lesh, Doerr
et al., 2003). Researchers adopting MMP reported that model-eliciting activities provide both pre-
service and in-service teachers with a rich and efficient professional development environment,
where the focus is on listening and responding to students’ emerging mathematical models, rather
than on the details of the phases in a modeling cycle or modeling competencies (Doerr, 2006; Doerr
& English, 2006; Doerr & Lesh, 2011).
Analysis of studies on mathematical modeling in Turkey revealed that research focused either on
describing students’ mathematical modeling or mathematical modeling in teacher education pro-
grams (e.g., Bukova-Güzel, 2010; Çiltaş & Işık, 2013; Delice & Kertil, 2015; Eraslan, 2011; Kertil,
2008). In particular, these studies revealed that pre-service teachers in Turkey are not usually
provided with opportunities for learning mathematical modeling, and so they mostly have limited
knowledge about it. Hence, many researchers (e.g., Bukova-Güzel, 2010; Çiltaş & Işık, 2013; Erbaş
et al., 2014) have stressed the need for courses on mathematical modeling within teacher education
programs.
The current literature suggests an initial knowledge base about the tools and activities to be used
in a mathematical modeling course for pre-service teachers; and, to some extent, describes the
knowledge that pre-service teachers need in order to use mathematical modeling in their teaching of
mathematics (e.g., Borromeo Ferri & Blum, 2010; Maaß & Gurlitt, 2009, 2011). However, many
researchers have voiced the need for more course-sized and research-based knowledge in order to
understand the changing conceptions and teachers’ roles, as well as the appropriate pedagogical
principles and strategies for using modeling in the teaching and learning of mathematics (e.g.,
Antonius, Haines, Jensen, Niss, & Burkhardt, 2007; Blum, 2015; Brady et al., 2015; Doerr & Lesh,
2011). In the current study, we aimed to contribute to the existing body of literature on the pedagogy
of mathematical modeling by conducting a course-sized multitiered design-based research (Lesh &
Kelly, 2000). As Hjalmarson and Lesh (2008) indicated, design-based studies should involve the
development of a product as well as the conceptual foundation that can guide future products. This
type of study is critical in terms of gathering information that can be useful in developing domain-
specific theoretical arguments as well as in developing the artifact. In this study, we first designed a
mathematical modeling course for pre-service teachers by describing the conceptual foundation and
design principles in detail. By implementing the course in several iterations, as our pre-conceived
notions related to teachers’ pedagogical knowledge of mathematical modeling changed, we also
revised, extended, and modified components of the course.
Conceptualization, development, and implementation of a modeling course

From a design-based research perspective, educational interventions have been accepted as a type of
design science (Brown, 1992; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003; Hjalmarson & Lesh,
2008). According to Hjalmarson and Lesh (2008), design research cycle necessitates (1) determina-
tion of the problematic situation as an initial starting point, (2) deciding on the conceptual founda-
tion by benefitting from diverse knowledge bases, theories, and experiences for developing a product,
(3) designing a product (product design) aiming at a change in the problematic situation, and (4)
testing the design in the system (system of use). Here, developing in-service and pre-service teachers’
professional knowledge about mathematical modeling seems a common problematic situation for
mathematics educators worldwide. In the following section, we describe the pedagogical knowledge
needed for teaching mathematics through modeling as the conceptual foundation.
Pedagogy of mathematical modeling

In this study, the term “pedagogy of mathematical modeling” describes appropriate pedagogical
principles and strategies that teachers need for the effective use of mathematical modeling, as the use
of mathematical modeling in the teaching and learning of mathematics requires changes in the
pedagogies and traditional roles of teachers (Doerr & English, 2006; English, 2003; Kaiser, 2014;
Kaiser et al., 2013; Kuntze et al., 2013; Lesh, Hoover, Hole, Kelly, & Post, 2000; Lesh & Lehrer, 2003;
Lingefjärd & Meier, 2010; Schorr & Lesh, 2003; Wake, 2011). Although many of the research studies
mentioned in the following sections would have different perspectives of mathematical modeling, we
tried to refine and synthetize the common pedagogical principles. The roles of teachers in traditional
methods and course structures consist of (1) demonstrating relevant facts, rules, skills, and processes;
(2) monitoring activities in which students repeat and practice these facts, rules, skills and processes;
and (3) correcting errors as they occur (Schorr & Lesh, 2003). However, teachers’ roles in teaching
mathematics through modeling can be interpreted somewhat differently, as facilitator, planner,
manager, and organizer of appropriate classroom environments as well as counselor and co-learner
of the students (Lesh & Doerr, 2003b; Lesh, Doerr et al., 2003; Lingefjärd & Meier, 2010). Further,
teaching through modeling requires teachers to perform a variety of teaching practices such as an
emphasis on group work, managing group and classroom discussions, and interpretive listening to
emerging ideas (Doerr & English, 2006; Galbraith, 2007; Niss et al., 2007). According to Kaiser
(2014), the role of the teachers within modeling activities has not been sufficiently researched: “Until
now not enough secure empirical evidence exists on how teachers can support students in indepen-
dent modelling activities, how can they support them in overcoming cognitive blockages, and how
can they foster metacognitive competencies” (p. 403). However, some of the competencies and
knowledge suggested for teachers to have in order to be able to integrate modeling successfully into
teaching, are as follows:
● Knowledge of the cognitive demands of given modeling tasks in order to select appropriate
tasks, activities, and other curricular materials for specific concepts and to engage students with
these materials (Blum, 2011; Doerr, 2007; Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Schmidt, 2011)
● Knowing how to organize classroom discourse and how to manage the classroom during
modeling activities (Blum, 2015; Lingefjärd & Meier, 2010), for example, emphasizing group
work (English, 2003; Wake, 2011; Zawojewski, Lesh, & English, 2003; Zbiek & Conner, 2006)
● Providing adaptive, independence-preserving, and strategic interventions as a way of scaffold-
ing and being aware of the principle of minimal teacher help (Blum, 2011, 2015; Blum &
Borromeo Ferri, 2009; Kaiser, 2014; Kaiser & Stender, 2013; Vorhölter et al., 2014)
● Interpretive listening, recognizing, and responding to students’ thinking (Doerr & English,
2006; Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Zawojewski et al., 2003)
● Recognizing productive paths versus less productive paths in the modeling process in order to
support students differentiate between useful and less useful ideas as well as in making
connections between ideas (Doerr, 2006; Doerr & Lesh, 2011)
● Recognizing unexpected solution approaches to modeling tasks and developing strategies to
cope with crises in the modeling process (Doerr, 2007)
● Having mathematical and extra-mathematical knowledge (Blum, 2015)
● Ability to use Information and Communications Technology (ICT) tools effectively in promot-
ing students’ modeling competencies (e.g., to ease students’ access to important mathematical
and extra-mathematical ideas; to foster task related communication and interaction among
teachers and students; to foster graphic-based understanding of the relevant topics) (Borba,
2009; Lesh & Caylor, 2007; Pead, Ralph, & Muller, 2007; Villarreal, Esteley, & Mina, 2010)
In a modeling course for pre-service teachers, some of the knowledge domains that might be
critical to foster these competencies can be classified under four major categories: (1) knowledge
about the nature of mathematical modeling, (2) knowledge about students’ ways of thinking, (3)
knowledge about using/integrating technology, and (4) knowledge about classroom management in
the process of teaching mathematics through modeling.
Knowledge about the nature of mathematical modeling includes knowledge about the significance
of modeling applications in teaching and learning mathematics (Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Kaiser &
Sriraman, 2006; Lesh, Cramer, Doerr, Post, & Zawojewski, 2003; Lesh & Doerr, 2003a), the
characteristics of modeling tasks including differences between modeling tasks and traditional
problems (Lesh et al., 2000; Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007; Sevis, 2016), and phases of the modeling
process and competencies required to perform them (Borromeo Ferri, 2006; Maaß, 2006). First,
knowledge about the significance of mathematical modeling and in what ways modeling applications
can contribute to students’ learning could help teachers in designing new learning environments
based on the needs of the students (Kuntze, 2011). On the other hand, the valuing of mathematical
modeling tasks might differ from teacher to teacher, according to their beliefs about the content and
aim of school mathematics (Kaiser & Maaß, 2007). If they consider school mathematics from a
symbolic manipulation and rule-oriented point of view, they might think mathematical modeling to
be unnecessary, time-consuming, or both. Second, knowledge about the characteristics of modeling
tasks might also help teachers in designing or selecting appropriate tasks (Blum, 2011; Galbraith,
2007; Galbraith, Stillman, & Brown, 2013). Third, knowledge about the phases in modeling process is
important for teachers in terms of being aware of the possible routes that students may go through
and the difficulties they may encounter in solving modeling tasks (Borromeo Ferri, 2006, 2010). This
knowledge is also critical for developing strategies to overcome student difficulties while moving
from one phase to another. Finally, knowledge about the competencies or abilities students need to
have in order to successfully solve modeling tasks might present a broader perspective for teachers in
specifying the learning objectives aimed at developing students’ skills (Kaiser, 2007; Maaß, 2006).
Knowledge about students’ ways of mathematical thinking has been considered as a significant
component of pedagogical content knowledge (Carpenter, Fennema, & Franke, 1996; Shulman,
1986). Since various solution methods and strategies might emerge within a modeling process,
being able to relate to these possible ways of students’ thinking is both critical and cognitively
demanding for teachers because it requires rapidly seeing, understanding, and interpreting these
multiple ways of thinking (Doerr, 2006; Doerr & Lesh, 2011; English, 2003; Lesh & Doerr, 2003a).
Interpreting students’ ways of thinking demands different skills on the part of teachers, such as
listening and understanding multiple ways that students might think, and their (unexpected) ideas;
being able to interpret correctly how students might think in order to provide them with quick
responses and feedback; encouraging and supporting students to seek more productive paths;
developing strategies to evaluate different solutions, and assessing group and individual student
performances in the process of in-class modeling applications (Didis, Erbas, Cetinkaya, Cakiroglu, &
Alacaci, 2016; Doerr, 2006, 2007; Doerr & English, 2006; Lingefjärd, 2002a; Maaß & Gurlitt, 2011;
Niss et al., 2007).
Information and communication technologies are frequently required when working with model-
ing tasks. Technological developments bring new opportunities in teaching mathematics through
modeling, such as applied and modeling tasks with realistic data becoming more accessible and
workable (Lingefjärd, 2000; Pead et al., 2007; Villarreal et al., 2010). Thus, teachers should have both
general knowledge about the use of technology in teaching mathematics, and knowledge about
which technology and how it may be useful for a particular modeling task (Henn, 2007; Lesh &
Caylor, 2007; Pead et al., 2007).
Knowledge about classroom management in the process of teaching through modeling is another
dimension involved in the pedagogy of mathematical modeling. Teachers need to have the necessary
knowledge and skills in order to productively organize the classroom environment for group work,
and to follow carefully the modeling processes of each group (Lesh & Doerr, 2003a, 2003b;
Lingefjärd & Meier, 2010; Wake, 2011; Zawojewski et al., 2003). First, teachers should have the
necessary knowledge about the ways of responding to student thinking (e.g., interpretive, strategic,
evaluative, etc.) when they are working on modeling tasks in order to ensure minimal teacher help
and maximum student independence (Blum, 2011, 2015; Blum & Borromeo Ferri, 2009; Doerr &
English, 2006; Kaiser, 2014; Kaiser & Stender, 2013). Further, teachers need to understand the fact
that modeling tasks should not be used as a stand-alone problem-solving application. In the teaching
of a particular mathematical concept, Lesh, Cramer and colleagues (2003) suggested the use of a
model development sequence, comprising of structurally related modeling and follow-up activities,
group discussions, student presentations, and classroom discussions about the structural similarities
of mathematical ideas across the tasks. Thus, teachers need to be able to manage group discussions,
student presentations, and classroom discussions to foster students developing their own mathema-
tical ideas.
Method: A multitiered design study

Unlike traditional teaching experiments that focus on testing preconceived designs or test hypotheses
and/or generate them, this study adopts a multitiered design study approach that embraces design
and experimentation processes in order to investigate the interacting development of several levels of
subjects (i.e., students, teachers, and researchers) (Lesh & Kelly, 2000; Lesh, Kelly, & Yoon, 2008;
Schorr & Lesh, 2003). At the student level (Tier 1), the focus is on investigating students’ developing
conceptions or abilities in situations involving multiple iterative cycles of expressing, testing, and
revising their initial ways of thinking about (simulations of) “real life” problem-solving situations. At
the teacher level (Tier 2), the focus of investigation is on teachers’ developing models to make sense
of their students’ thinking, competencies, or behaviors. In addition, at the researcher level (Tier 3),
the focus is on researchers’ developing conceptions or models to make sense of both teacher and
student behavior (Lesh & Kelly, 2000). In the current study, which is a two-tiered design study
focusing on the teacher-level and researcher-level models, we analyzed pre-service teachers’ concep-
tions about the nature and pedagogy of modeling in a course-sized research setting. While the pre-
service mathematics teachers (Tier 2) engaged in and reflected on model-eliciting activities, and
developed their own models showing their conceptions about the nature and pedagogy of mathe-
matical modeling, we, as the researchers (Tier 3), analyzed and reflected on the pre-service teachers’
work and reflections to evaluate and refine our understanding about designing and conducting a
course focusing on pedagogy of mathematical modeling (Lesh & Kelly, 2000).
The participants and the research context

The participants of the study were 25 pre-service secondary school mathematics teachers (18 female
and 7 male) enrolled in a “Mathematical Modeling for Teachers” course at a Turkish public
university. The mathematics education program was a five-year BSc program, where the pre-service
teachers were selected based on their scores from the nationwide university entrance examination.
While 16 of the pre-service teachers were in their third year of the five-year program, 7 were in the
fourth year, and 2 were in the fifth year. The pre-service teachers’ ages ranged from 19 to 22 years.
Although all of the pre-service teachers had completed standard mathematics courses (e.g., calculus,
differential equations, number theory), and some introductory educational courses (e.g., introduc-
tion to educational sciences, the psychology of development), only participants in their fourth and
fifth years had taken courses in mathematics education. Only four participants reported that they
had worked on mathematical modeling tasks as part of another course.
The course lasted 15 weeks, with one four-hour lesson held each week. The pre-service teachers
worked in groups of three to four throughout the semester. The course instructor and three research
assistants organized and led the course. Weekly meetings were conducted one day before each class
in order to go through the details of the weekly course plan and course content, and to review the
roles and duties of the instructor and research assistants. In the study, while the instructor took full
responsibility for facilitating the classroom-based learning activities, the research assistants observed
the classes, took field notes, and provided technical assistance. Further, only the instructor commu-
nicated with the pre-service teachers, and all questions and comments received from the pre-service
teachers were redirected to the instructor. At the end of each class session, short meetings were held
between the instructor and research assistants to discuss any issues that may have emerged and to
consider appropriate adaptations in terms of pace and content.
Design and implementation of the course

The course that served as the context of this study was developed through several subprocesses,
including specifying the learning objectives of the course, determining the key components that
made up the content of the course (in accordance with the objectives), and piloting the course to
revise and refine its content. In developing the content and structure of the course, studies from the
literature were reviewed where they focused particularly on mathematical modeling in mathematics
teacher preparation and teacher development programs. The conceptualization of pedagogical
competencies that teachers require for the use of applications and modeling problems while teaching
mathematics also helped determine the initial course structure and content.
The course was developed through several iterations over three teaching semesters; each iteration
served to enhance the content of the course and/or incorporate new components within the course.
Major revisions were applied to the content and a number of the modeling tasks used within the
course, the time devoted to modeling tasks and to other in-class activities, the scheduling of modeling
activities, group presentations, and in-class theoretical discussions. A new component dealing with
examining the work of high school students, drawn from real classrooms, was also added to the course
content. Thus, the updated version of the course included the following components: (1) in-class
modeling activities, (2) group work (during modeling tasks and other classroom activities), (3) use of
technology (spreadsheets and graphing calculators), (4) examining high-school students’ ways of
thinking, (5) developing a modeling task and implementing it, and (6) in-class theoretical discussions.
Figure 1 (left) shows the components of the modeling course. In accord with multitiered design study,
the course was intended to provide a context for pre-service teachers to be able to describe, evaluate,
and refine their conceptions about the nature and pedagogy of mathematical modeling (see Figure 1,
right) through in-class and out-of-class activities. Out-of-class activities (i.e., interviews and reflection
papers) primarily focus on the provision of opportunities for pre-service teachers to reflect on in-class
activities. The course was implemented according to a weekly schedule (see Appendix). Each compo-
nent of the course is explained in the following section.
In-class modeling activities

Working on modeling tasks in small groups to gain first-hand experience about the modeling
processes and reflecting on this experience have a great potential for the professional development
of teachers (Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Schorr & Lesh, 2003). Instead of giving theoretical knowledge in the
form of a direct presentation about mathematical modeling and teaching through modeling, the
course was designed to help pre-service teachers develop their own ideas through active participa-
tion. In the process of working on modeling tasks, pre-service teachers were expected to not only
solve the problems but also to develop some big ideas and skills about the nature of mathematical
modeling, how to implement a modeling task in a classroom, how to manage a classroom during a
modeling implementation process.
In the current study, pre-service teachers worked on six modeling tasks in small groups over the
course of one semester. These tasks were either adapted from previous studies or developed based on
the principles of designing model-eliciting activities (Lesh et al., 2000). The modeling tasks used in
this study involved building models (i.e., expressive modeling) rather than using prebuilt models
formed by experts (i.e., exploratory modeling), as they aimed to provide learners with the opportu-
nity “to express their own concepts and to learn through the iterative process of representing their
ideas, selecting objects, defining relationships among objects, operating on those relationships, and
Figure 1. The components of the designed course and elements of teacher knowledge targeted in the course.
interpreting and validating outcomes” (Doerr & Pratt, 2008, p. 265). The first mathematical task was
“Summer Jobs.” Adapted from Lesh and Lehrer (2000, pp. 665–708), the task required to develop a
method in order to hire full-time and part-time vendors by analyzing a set of data showing the hours
worked and money collected by each vendor. The second task was “Ferris Wheel.” Developed by the
research team, the task mainly involved the concepts of unit circle and trigonometric functions, and
were required to develop a model that calculates the instantaneous location of any capsule on a
Ferris wheel as it moves. The third task was “Street Parking”; adapted from Swetz and Hartzer (1991,
p. 71), the task required to design a parking lot with a maximum parking capacity for a certain given
space, by using the properties of triangles and trigonometric relationships. The fourth task was the
“Bouncing Ball”; adapted from the InterMath project (n.d.), which required to find the bounce rate
of a ball dropped from a certain height. The fifth task, “Rollercoaster,” required to design a
rollercoaster that not only provides fun and excitement but also ensures the safety of those riding
it. Adapted from the studies of Carlson (1998) and Carlson, Larsen, and Lesh (2003), the final task,
known as “Water Tank,” demanded covariational reasoning to represent changing rate while
imagining continuous change in the amount of fluid held in a reservoir (see Figure 2).
The modeling tasks and other in-class activities were implemented by following implementation
plans that included a general outline of the lesson; possible warm-up strategies; possible solution
strategies, and mistakes that might be encountered (e.g., for the Water Tank task, considering time
The Water Tank

A leading software company produces variety of programs to educational institutions. The
company had just been commissioned to make a short animation that shows a variety of water
tanks filled with fluid and some graphical representations of this process. A team of
professionals who work on this project needs a graph that shows the height of the fluid as a
function of the amount of fluid in the tank.
Assume that you are a member of this team as a mathematician. The team members need your
help to make sure this animation and accompanied graphs appear realistic. You are expected
to provide a graph for each of the water tanks and a manual that tells them how to make their
own graph for any tank that is shown in the animation [Pictures of various different water
tanks in the shape of cylinder, sphere, cone and combinations of these are provided for the
task].
Figure 2. The Water Tank task used in the study [adapted from Carlson and others (2003). Integrating models and modeling
perspective with existing research and practice. In R. Lesh, & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling
perspective (pp. 465–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates].
as an independent variable although unnecessary, different ways of drawing and explaining non-
linear curves); strategies to overcome these mistakes; and a pool of questions to reveal pre-service
teachers’ thinking (e.g., What assumptions did you make to come up with this strategy? How did you
break up the water tank? What would be the shape of the graph at these critical points?). During the
implementations of each modeling task, the pre-service teachers first worked individually on the
modeling task for about 5–10 minutes, and then worked as a group for a further 60–90 minutes. At
the end, each group presented and discussed their solutions for the modeling task for between
5–10 minutes. When groups had the same solution or similar approach, the instructor selected one
of the groups to present their results. The course instructor, who had also taught earlier versions of
the course, orchestrated the learning activities with a realization of the fact that his role would be
carefully observed and modeled by the pre-service teachers.
Group work
The importance of group work has been commonly emphasized for implementing mathematical
modeling tasks (Lesh & Doerr, 2003a; Zawojewski et al., 2003). Working in groups could provide
pre-service teachers with a realistic modeling experience that contributes to the understanding of
issues that students might face in the modeling process. Thus, at the beginning of the semester, the
pre-service teachers formed groups of three or four, based on their own choosing. They worked in
these same groups throughout the semester.
Technology in modeling
Knowledge about technology has been emphasized as an important dimension of the pedagogy of
mathematical modeling (Pead et al., 2007). As the primary focus in such a course is not on
technology integration, only spreadsheets and graphing calculators were discussed briefly for their
potential use in some of the modeling tasks of this study. While working on the modeling tasks using
these tools, the pre-service teachers were also expected to develop ideas on the role of technology in
mathematical modeling.
Analyzing high-school students’ ways of thinking about the same modeling tasks
Knowledge about students’ ways of thinking is a critical dimension of teacher knowledge (Carpenter
et al., 1996; Doerr, 2007; English, 2003). Thus, the examination of high school students’ ways of
thinking by pre-service teachers was added as a component of the course; in previous iterations, the
course did not have this component. In the current iteration, the pre-service teachers were provided
with high school students’ written work and classroom videos that recorded four of the six modeling
tasks (Street Parking, Bouncing Ball, Rollercoaster, and Water Tank).
These materials were collected from four different high school classrooms and organized to show
diversity in students’ ways of thinking. For each modeling task, written work by students was
selected where they had utilized different mathematical concepts and representations. The students’
written work included their final solutions, explanations, drawings, and computations. Video
recordings of students’ modeling processes included episodes from whole-class and group discus-
sions, as well as group presentations for each modeling task. These episodes contained students’ early
ideas for solving the tasks, key dialogues that reflect students’ ways of thinking during the process,
and their final solutions and justifications.
This activity was conducted fortnightly; beginning in the fifth week and ending in the eleventh
week of the course. During the activity, pre-service teachers were asked to think about, interpret, and
report on students’ different solution strategies, both strong and weak aspects of the solutions, and
students’ difficulties and errors made in solving the tasks.
Developing and implementing a mathematical modeling task

Teachers need professional knowledge regarding the nature of modeling tasks, how to select
appropriate tasks for their students, and the possible outcomes of these tasks (Lesh et al., 2000;
Maaß & Gurlitt, 2011). They also need to be capable of adapting or developing appropriate modeling
tasks when needed. In this study, as part of the course assignments, each group of pre-service
teachers were required to develop a modeling task, prepare an implementation plan, and implement
it in the classroom with their peers. The eleventh week of the course was devoted to how to develop
an implementation plan for one of the modeling activities that they worked on during the semester.
A template was provided to guide the pre-service teachers in creating an implementation plan. The
following are some sample entries from the template: things to be done to warm up to the task,
possible solution strategies students may use in solving the task, the difficulties students may have
and the methods to be used to overcome these difficulties, the criteria and/or tools to assess
individual and group modeling processes. At the end of the class session, plans from all groups
were shared with the class and a classwide discussion was held. In the following week, each group
prepared an implementation plan for the modeling task they had developed during the semester.
Over the next three weeks, one pre-service teacher from each group implemented their modeling
tasks with the assistance of the group members.
In-class theoretical discussions and reflections

Having pre-service teachers observe the instructor, discuss, and systematically reflect on their
experiences in relation to the learning activities that they had in the course were considered
important for them to develop insight into mathematical modeling and teaching and learning
mathematics through modeling. This was because how they were taught could affect their concep-
tions about using modeling in teaching and learning mathematics (Brown & Borko, 1992). During
the course, the pre-service teachers’ emerging ideas about the different dimensions of the pedagogy
of mathematical modeling were also supported by theoretical discussions on the different under-
standings of modeling, and issues on using modeling in teaching and learning mathematics. They
were also asked to write reflection papers about in-class modeling activities as well as the develop-
ment and implementation processes of a modeling task and students’ ways of thinking. To help pre-
service teachers think more deeply about their modeling activity experiences, they were provided
with a guideline that contained questions related mainly to (a) the nature of the task (e.g., What was
the task about? What do you think about the context of the task and the mathematical knowledge
involved in the task? What can you say if you compare this task with the other mathematical
problems that you have encountered before taking this course?), (b) the nature of their modeling
process (e.g., Could you explain in detail your group’s solution process from beginning to end, and
explain any different ways of thinking that emerged during this process? What assumptions did you
make? How did you determine these assumptions? How did you make sure that your solution was
good enough?), (c) the issues on implementation of the task in an actual classroom environment
(e.g., How can you implement this problem in a classroom context? What difficulties do you expect
students to experience?), and (d) the role of group work and the use of technology in their modeling
processes (e.g., What do you think about the effectiveness of group work in the context of this task?).
Through these reflections, the pre-service teachers were not only required to discuss and interpret
the issues related to the use of modeling in teaching and learning of mathematics, but they were also
asked to relate what they had learned during the course experiences.
Data collection
Design studies benefit from multiple data collection methods (Hjalmarson & Lesh, 2008). The data
in this study were collected through multiple sources: (1) questionnaires, which were administered at
the beginning and at the end of the course, and included questions about the nature of mathematical
modeling, the modeling process, and the use of mathematical modeling in teaching and learning; (2)
the groups’ written work for each modeling task; (3) pre-service teachers’ analysis of the classroom
videos and students’ written work from the classroom implementations of some of the modeling
tasks that they also worked on during the course, (4) pre-service teachers’ individual written
reflection papers for each in-class modeling activity; and (5) 25–30 minutes long interviews of one
member of each group about their group study process for each in-class modeling activity. In
addition, at the end of the semester, after implementing their modeling tasks, focus group interviews
were conducted, each with a duration of about 20 minutes. In the focus group interviews, the groups
were asked to reflect on their classroom implementations. Another source (6) was video and audio-
recorded classroom observations, and field notes. Each class session was recorded by three separate
video cameras, one of which was positioned to capture the whole class, and the others focused on
two different groups. Additionally, interactions and communication within the group were recorded
using voice recorders, and the modeling processes of the groups were noted by the research
assistants. The final source (7) was individually written reflection papers on the process of develop-
ing a modeling task and their experiences in implementing the modeling task in a classroom.
Data analysis
Two types of analysis, ongoing and retrospective, are involved in a design-based research (Cobb &
Gravemeijer, 2008). Ongoing analyses are conducted during the process of the experiment and deal
with quick modifications of the artifact and data collection methods. Systematic and retrospective
data analysis begins after the classification of data resources and determination of the conceptual
framework. Adopting grounded theory perspective (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), a constant comparative
qualitative data analysis strategy was followed for analyzing the data. The main strategy used by the
constant comparative method is to compare and contrast the incidents that form the preliminary
categories obtained from a particular source of data with other incidents in the same or another
source of data in order to determine if a fit is possible (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The data, collected
through multiple methods and multiple sources, were organized, read over several times, and coded
in order to allow patterns, concepts, and categories to emerge naturally (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In
analyzing the data, first, participants’ reflection papers were analyzed and a temporary code list was
created. Next, transcribed interviews were analyzed and new codes were combined with the code list.
Then, the remaining datasets were analyzed and a final version of the code list was obtained. Three
researchers independently coded about 20% of the data from each dataset. In order to establish a
consensus on the codes applied, each researcher examined the same dataset individually and then
came together to discuss the codes. The researchers reached full agreement through discussion on
codes that had initially caused a difference of opinion, and by comparing and contrasting their codes
and categories. Once all the researchers reached a certain common understanding on the nature and
content of the codes and categories, two of the researchers analyzed the remaining data by regularly
meeting to discuss and negotiate agreements and disagreements.
Results
In this section, findings regarding the developments in pre-service mathematics teachers’ big ideas
on the pedagogical knowledge of modeling are presented under the following themes: (1) concep-
tions about the nature of mathematical modeling and (2) conceptions about the pedagogical
principles and strategies needed for teaching mathematics through mathematical modeling.
Conceptions about the nature of mathematical modeling

Pre-service teachers’ initial and emerging conceptions about the nature of mathematical modeling
categorized under a number of themes and subthemes are presented in Table 1. The frequency of the
appearance of ideas is provided to present and emphasize the general point of views and the big ideas
developed by the pre-service teachers regarding the nature of mathematical modeling and its role in
the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Table 1. Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of mathematical modeling at the beginning and at the end of the course.
At the Beginning of the Course At the End of the Course
Conceptions about Mathematical Modeling Relating mathematics with real life Relating mathematics with real life (n = 20)
(n = 2) Using mathematical knowledge in giving
Using concrete manipulatives and meaning to real life situations (n = 3)
visualizations in the teaching and Applying mathematics while solving
learning mathematics (n = 23) problems from real life (n = 2)
Conceptions about Characteristics of Modeling Include concrete materials (n = 7) Involve authentic, real situations (n = 22)
Tasks Open-ended (n = 2) Open-ended (n = 23)
No idea (n = 16) Contain more than one mathematical
concept (n = 17)
Have multiple solution approaches and the
nature of solution process is cyclical (n = 12)
Require the need for a solution (n = 10)
Solution can be generalized (serve as a
prototype) (n = 10)
Different from traditional word problems
(n = 24)
Conceptions about Advantages and Advantages Provide an understanding of Provide motivation (n = 17)
Disadvantages of Modeling in abstract mathematical concepts by Strengthen the understanding of a
Teaching and Learning making them concrete (n = 12) mathematical concept (n = 15)
Mathematics No idea (n = 13) Serve to investigate real life applications of
mathematics (n = 12)
Enhance meaningful learning of
mathematics (n = 10)
Provide opportunities for learning through
group work (n = 8)
Disadvantages No comment (n = 25) Require more time than conventional
teaching (n = 18)
Difficult to implement in large classes
(n = 15)
May result in deviations from the course
schedule (n = 14)
Not appropriate for using frequently (n = 10)
Difficult to find, develop, or select an
appropriate task (n = 9)
At the beginning of the course, most of the pre-service mathematics teachers had either none or a
very limited knowledge about mathematical modeling. They indicated that mathematical modeling
was related to using concrete visual materials. By the end of the course, they frequently emphasized
“relating mathematics with real life,” “applying mathematics while solving problems from real life,”
and “using mathematics in giving meaning to real life situations” while describing the mathematical
modeling. They realized the relationship between mathematical modeling and the meaningful
understanding of mathematical concepts. They also developed ideas about characteristics of model-
ing tasks. Pointing out that modeling tasks are different from traditional word problems, they
characterized these tasks as being related to real life and open-ended; often including more than
one mathematical concept; involving more than one solution method, and having a cyclical solution
process; and demanding a model generation and generalizing solutions to similar contexts.
Regarding the use of modeling tasks in teaching mathematics, the pre-service teachers indicated
various positive and negative ideas. For example, while pre-service teachers frequently emphasized
that using modeling tasks would motivate students to learn mathematics, they also indicated as a
disadvantage that it takes longer to implement a modeling task in a classroom compared to
conventional teaching.
Conceptions about students’ ways of thinking

The analysis of data showed that pre-service teachers’ conceptions about students’ ways of thinking
developed through (1) reflecting on in-class modeling activities, particularly the way in which the
instructor handled pre-service teachers’ different ways of thinking; and (2) analyzing and interpret-
ing high school students’ solutions to some of the modeling tasks.
In a typical modeling implementation session, the pre-service teachers worked in groups. While
the pre-service teachers were working on the modeling tasks, the instructor closely observed the
groups, and asked questions to help clarify their mathematical thinking. The following excerpt from
the Water Tank task shows such a conversation between the instructor and the pre-service teachers.
Instructor: Okay guys, how is it going? Have you had a chance to work on the graphs yet?
PT16: Yes, these are our graphs. Now we will prepare a manual for explaining how to draw a
graph for any tank.
Instructor: What are the variables?
PT16: Time and height. We put “time” on the x-axis, because “height” changes as time passes.
Instructor: What is asked in the question?
PT15: Hmm, let me see! The question is asking for height as a function of volume . . . height
with respect to volume. Ok, then, should we draw the graph with respect to “time” or
with respect to “volume”?
PT16: Of course height-time . . .
PT14: But . . ., it is asking for the graph, which shows the height of water with respect to the
amount of water . . . [silence for about 30 seconds]
PT16: I think we should draw with respect to time.
PT15: But, if we consider with respect to “time,” it should be linear here, but you drew a curve. . . .
As seen in this excerpt, although the pre-service teachers considered “time” as an independent
variable, and plotted it as the x-axis in their early drawings, they began discussing the appropriate-
ness of the variables after the instructor tried to draw their attention to the variables. Without further
instructor support, after discussing it for about 10 minutes, they decided to use “amount of water or
volume” as the independent variable and they drew the graphs seen in Figure 3.
However, this time, the transitions between different regions of the water tank on the graph was
not consistent with the real situation. The group members did not realize this situation on their own
until the instructor questioned them. The following episode was observed during the instructor’s
next visit to the group.
Instructor: Okay, you drew the graphs. Let us consider the following situation. Look at the regions
just before and just after the transition point, where the shape of the water tank changes
from spherical into cylindrical. How does the height per unit volume change just before
and after the transition point?
Figure 3. Group #1’s initial drawing of the height-volume graph for the Water Tank task.
PT15: Is the graph wrong?

PT14: Hmm. . . . Now we are considering this point, just before and after. . . . In fact, there
seems to be no difference, does there? Because, there should be a slight difference, but
they are almost the same in here.
PT16: Yeah, they look almost the same.
Instructor: All right, isn’t there a slight difference? When we compare this point and that point
[pointing to transition from the spherical to cylindrical part of the tank], at what point
should the increase in the height per unit volume be greater?
PT14: Is it faster here? [pointing to the spherical part]
PT15: Of course, it is faster here [pointing to the spherical part], because it is a little narrower
than the upper part.
Instructor: Very well, let us turn to your graph again. As it is, at which point does the increase in
height per unit volume seem greater, here or here [asking on the graph]?
PT14: Hmm, oh! This part should be less steep [i.e., the slope should be smaller]. At the transition
point, we say it will decrease, but we are drawing from above. This is not right.
PT16: No, it is increasing.
PT14: I mean it is decreasingly increasing.
Instructor: Then, how should it be?
PT14: We should draw the graph for the cylindrical part less steep. Ok, I got the idea!
This excerpt shows that the instructor listened to the group and questioned the pre-service
teachers’ graphs by drawing their attention to the transition points where the graph was not correct.
The instructor then asked them to compare the rates of change just before and just after the
transition points. He continued asking questions until the pre-service teachers realized that there
was something wrong about the graph at the transition points. They started to think and go into
more detail on how height per unit volume changed just before and just after major parts of the tank.
In Kaiser and Stender’s (2013) terms, the type of intervention used by the instructor here was
“content-oriented strategic help” or evaluative orientation. Even though it is difficult to argue that
the instructor applied the principle of minimal help, the responsibility for finding the more useful
ideas was placed squarely with the pre-service teachers.
During the next visit to the same group, the instructor asked them to explain the relationship
between height and volume for each part in order to clarify the meaning of their work. Their
explanations were as follows.
Instructor: Okay, I see that you are drawing three graphs. Could you please explain how you drew
the graphs for each part?
PT16: We took their shapes into consideration.
PT15: We roughly and intuitively decided on these curves.
Instructor: Okay, for example, this one [pointing one of the water tanks in the task]. How did you
draw this curve for the upper part? You can think about it first, and then tell me.
Instructor: How did you do that?
PT16: We divided the cone into slices that have equal heights [see Figure 4]. The triangles are
similar. If I say S, 3S, 5S . . .
Instructor: What did you do? You have taken the heights as equal, haven’t you?
PT16: Yes, we have.
Instructor: How does the volume change?
PT13: By S, 3S, 5S. . .
Instructor: Does the volume change like that?
PT16: You know; the triangles are similar. I think it is true for the cone also.
Instructor: How do you use the similarity of triangles here? What do you mean by 3S, 5S?
PT16: You know it happens in the triangles.
Instructor: For areas or for volumes?
Figure 4. Group #1’s partitioning of the cone part of the water tank into slices with equal heights.
PT16: Areas. I think the areas of the triangle are related to the volumes of a cone.
Instructor: How are they related?
As seen in the part of the conversation given, the instructor encouraged and guided the pre-
service teachers to reflect on their work and articulate their thinking. In the dialogue that followed,
the instructor used questions such as “Could you please explain how you drew the graphs for each
part? How did you do that? How do the volumes change?” After a much longer discussion (all of
which is not given here), the group reached the conclusion that for an equal change in height,
successive increments in the volume decreased. This way of thinking confused them again, because
they had considered height as the independent variable and therefore had changed it with equal
increments. Their verbal explanation was that “the increase in volume gradually decreases with
respect to the equal amount of change in the height.” In this explanation, the dependent and
independent variables change places. As the instructor asked the pre-service teachers to relate
their verbal explanation to the graph they had plotted, they realized the inconsistencies between
their verbal and graphical representations. In this context, the instructor’s interventions can be
considered as interpretive and general-strategic in nature, in that it revealed the pre-service teachers’
mathematical thinking and helped them to reflect on their way of thinking.
Similar conversations between the instructor and the pre-service teachers took place during other
modeling tasks, indicating through questioning, how the instructor facilitated pre-service teachers’
thinking about the tasks. The instructor demonstrated both evaluative and interpretive orientations
toward the pre-service teachers’ work during the implementation of the modeling tasks. During the
individual interviews, it was evident that the pre-service teachers noted and valued the teaching
practices of the instructor, even though he occasionally took an evaluative stance. They reported
their observations of the instructor’s questioning and discussed how the probing questions encour-
aged them to think about the problem more deeply, even though it was sometimes confusing. For
example, two pre-service teachers expressed their views about how the questioning style of the
instructor served as a role model for them as follows:
PT14 Actually, I learned a lot from the instructor. He asked very logical questions that helped us to
find our mistakes on our own. For example, he came to us, and asked various questions to
understand our solution and which led us to think about the problem, such as “What did you
find?”, “What exactly does this mean?”, “How did you reach that conclusion?”, “Can you
draw its graph?”, “Can you state it differently?” I want to model the practices of the
instructor that he demonstrated during the group discussions when he came over to our
desk. . . . We were sometimes perplexed by his probing questions, but these questions forced
us to think more and more about the situation. . . . We had no clue from his gestures or
mimics. . .
PT24: He [instructor] came over to us and asked questions about what we were doing. He listened
to our ideas. He tried to determine at which level we were in the solution process. He asked
questions to understand our solution. He never said “correct” or “incorrect.” He asked
questions like “What will you do if that happens?”, “What happens if this goes like this?”,
“How did you find that out?”, “Can you explain?” These questions were leading us to
understand the situation and the context. He avoided directing us overtly in any specific
way. . . . His questions led us to check our own solution approach in the process. . .
As indicated by the pre-service teachers, the types of interventions used by the instructor during
the implementation of modeling tasks provided them with a role model to emulate. They commonly
valued the instructor’s way of intervention by drawing attention to some qualities such as not leading
them toward a specific way of thinking, or not evaluating the accuracy or relevance of their ideas.
Most of the pre-service teachers indicated that examining high school students’ work was a
valuable experience for them. They stated that they had gained important ideas about the diversity of
the students’ thinking. For example, a graph for the solution of the Water Tank by a group of tenth
grade students involved linear components (see Figure 5), while others made graphs with sharp
corners indicating the transitions among the different parts of the tank. The pre-service teachers
indicated that they were surprised when they encountered such sophisticated solutions, as well as
those with mistakes, as shown in Figure 5.
By examining the video recordings of high school students’ modeling processes, the pre-service
teachers were able to criticize the role of the teacher during the classroom discussion. For example,
regarding the students’ work shown in Figure 5, the pre-service teachers agreed that the teacher did
not ask “good” questions that could have helped and supported the students to revise their ways of
thinking, as exemplified in the following excerpt:
Instructor: What do you think about this solution?

PT14: Here it seems to me that the teacher did not ask appropriate questions. He wants
students to explain by asking, “Why is it linear?” and students continue to respond by
using incorrect expressions. Nevertheless, the teacher does not guide them to find their
mistake. In my opinion, he could have provided a figure of a water tank, whose graph
corresponded to the graph constructed by the students, and then he could ask them for
the difference between the two. . .
Here, the pre-service teacher’s orientation to adopt an evaluative stance led us (the researchers) to
become skeptical about whether or not the role played by the instructor provided pre-service
Figure 5. A solution by tenth grade students for the Water Tank task.
teachers with the necessary tools to deal with diverse issues regarding the implementation of
modeling tasks. On the other hand, through examining the students’ work, the pre-service teachers
realized that students could reason differently than their expectations and attempt multiple ways in
order to reach a solution, as illustrated in the following excerpts:
PT16: When students deal with a task that they have never seen or attempted before and if they are
aware of the problem in daily life, I observed that they can come up with some incredible
solutions, which would have never have come to my mind such as solving the problem by
scaling up the quantities, and trying to use formulas such as m g h and 12 mv2 in the
Rollercoaster modeling activity. Students could try all different ways to reach the solution.
However, when I analyzed students’ solution papers and watched their videos, I noticed that
they were weak in providing arguments about their own ways of thinking.
PT3: To be honest, I used to assume that students would think like me. I thought they would make
the same mistakes, but I was surprised when I saw their mistakes. They thought differently. I
mean, they interpreted the situation according to their own drawings. They understood it
incorrectly, so they drew a perpendicular line. They made incredible mistakes. I would not
have thought they would have made these mistakes.
In summary, throughout the course, the pre-service teachers had firsthand experience of model-
ing processes and gained ideas about the diversity in students’ ways of thinking. Additionally, by
observing the practices of the course instructor and the secondary mathematics teachers in the
videos, they developed conceptions about how teachers could handle different ways of thinking. The
pre-service teachers also realized the difficulty of listening and understanding the multiplicity of
student thinking. They had chances to observe new teacher roles when interacting with students in
nontraditional ways of interventions, although it was difficult to argue that the instructor was always
the “best” role model.
Conceptions about the teacher role and classroom management

The course activities helped the pre-service teachers to develop important ideas about classroom
management during modeling activities. As indicated in the sections, most of the pre-service
teachers commented about the classroom management during the previous implementations of
the modeling task based on the practices of the course instructor. The pre-service teachers also
developed specific ideas about classroom management after they implemented the modeling tasks
that they had developed as part of the course requirements. During the focus group interviews, they
indicated that they realized the difficulty of understanding and handling different ideas and ques-
tions coming from the students. Almost all groups indicated that they found it difficult to respond to
unexpected questions and support students when they seemed to use different ways of reasoning.
PT21: I realized that implementing a modeling task is more difficult than solving it.
Interviewer: Why do you think so?
PT21: Sometimes, we did not know how to respond to the groups. We were talking about the
questions asked by different groups among ourselves. We were trying to find a way to
explain. PT23 was saying general things like “think strategically” and asking some
other questions that did not quite help . . . [while PT23 was acting as the main teacher,
PT21 and PT22 were observing the groups’ modeling processes and their in-group
interactions.]
PT22: Meanwhile, we were talking about what that group said, what another group did, and
we were trying to find an appropriate way to respond to these groups. . .
As revealed in the episode, the pre-service teachers stated that implementing a modeling activity
could be more difficult than to solve it. As PT21 indicated, they even tried to avoid answering the
questions coming from different groups during their implementations. In one instance, PT22 stated
that they discussed among themselves the questions asked by the different groups. They further
commented as follows.
Interviewer: I think PT23 was at the forefront in the class. [directing the question to PT23] What was
your experience like during the implementation?
PT23: Because we were discussing between only a few people in a small group, only a few
different ideas were appearing and these ideas were mostly similar. However, because
there were more people in the class, many different things happened and it became
more difficult to handle.
Interviewer: In your role as observers [referring to PT21 and PT22], what was the most difficult part
for PT23?
PT22: I think it was more difficult for us than him. . .
Interviewer: Ok! Why was that so?
PT22: Really, PT23 was coming and saying such things as “okay,” “let’s continue.” It was
exactly a teacher’s tactic. . .
PT23: I tried to manage the whole class, but maybe I did not face as much difficulty as
they did.
PT21: At the beginning, we were expecting that PT23 would manage all the progress. But it
didn’t happen like that, so we couldn’t just stay on the side. . .
Interviewer: Your experience, what was it like?
PT21: We had to handle the questions asked by different groups and we tried to come up
with appropriate questions. If they were on a correct path, we said, “Okay, continue”
and suchlike. . .
PT22: It was also tiring for PT23. When he did not understand, in order to gain time, he was
asking some different questions like “What did you do?”, “I understand you think like
that,” etc.
Interviewer: Was it useful?
PT23: Yes, it helped.
Interviewer: Was it helpful for you or for the students? Could they come up with new ideas?
PT23: It was useful for both sides, for us and on the part of the students as well. We were
gaining time to think about ideas for the questions, etc. . . .
As exemplified in the excerpt, the groups often emphasized the important, yet difficult role that
the teacher should take during the implementation of modeling tasks. They frequently emphasized
how they felt helpless about some questions asked by different groups in terms of providing timely
and appropriate feedback. As indicated by PT23, he had difficulty in understanding and giving
meaningful comment, as there were different ways of thinking embedded in student questions. PT22
and PT21 considered PT23’s questions and comments as strategies for just “gaining time.” Further,
the pre-service teachers indicated that it was also difficult for them to listen to very different and
improper ways of thinking without hinting the correct answer, as would be the case for teachers
applying direct instruction. One pre-service teacher explained this as follows:
PT5: . . . the main difficulty for me was that they were asking questions and I felt like telling
them the correct way. You know, we could not do that exactly. I could not find a way to
deal with these questions without directly telling them the correct way. . .
Instructor: Well, what exactly did you do in such situations?
PT5: I was trying to ask some questions, but at the same time, I was making an effort not to
give out the answer. I had difficulty in formulating the right questions.
Additionally, the pre-service teachers expressed their views about what they would advise to
teachers who want to apply modeling tasks.
PT15: I believe that modeling tasks need to be used by teachers who have the necessary knowledge
about mathematical modeling and who are trained for it. This is because, I think, a teacher
should be a guide and be able to foresee potential questions from students. While preparing
an implementation plan, teachers should adjust the time schedule in accordance with
students’ level; consider all kinds of obstacles they may face, and be flexible about the plan.
(focus group interview response).
PT2: A teacher should ask probing questions that can guide students towards a solution, but he or
she should avoid using directing questions or directly answering questions asked by the
students. . . . While ending the lesson, teachers should make sure that all of the groups’ ideas
are presented, questions are asked and all ideas are heard by everyone in the class. The topic
should be summed up after all of the opinions and ideas have been shared. Different ways of
solutions, correct or incorrect, need to be shared and covered in the classroom (focus group
interview response).
As seen in the excerpts, PT15 stressed that teachers who want to use a modeling task should have
a deep knowledge about the task. She offered this knowledge as necessary for a teacher in order to
guide students in a modeling activity. Emphasizing the intervention style of the teacher, PT2
indicated that the teacher should avoid giving direct feedback or use directive questions. He also
emphasized the importance of sharing all the ideas that come up in a classroom. In fact, most of the
groups reported the difficulty of implementing a modeling task, even if the implementer himself
developed it, without knowledge about and a repertoire of strategies in handling all the possible ways
of student thinking.
Discussion
The findings of the study showed that pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions
about mathematical modeling were very limited at the beginning of the course. Most of the pre-
service teachers indicated that either they had no idea or they explained mathematical modeling as
using (or producing) concrete materials and manipulatives in teaching mathematics. Similar findings
were obtained by other researchers in terms of teachers’ knowledge about mathematical modeling
(Abramovich, 2013; Borromeo Ferri & Blum, 2010; Maaβ & Gurlitt, 2011). These findings show that
most of the pre-service and in-service teachers in different countries have limited knowledge about
mathematical modeling. One possible reason for this may be a lack of courses on mathematical
modeling within teacher education programs (Lingefjärd, 2007), just as some recent studies have
focused on developing such professional development courses (e.g., Kaiser & Schwarz, 2006; Maaß &
Gurlitt, 2009, 2011).
In the current study, having first-hand experience in modeling processes was deemed critical for
pre-service teachers. As indicated by the models and modeling perspective (e.g., Lesh & Doerr, 2003a;
Lesh, Doerr et al., 2003; Schorr & Lesh, 2003), teachers should be provided with learning environments
in which they can develop their conceptual models by developing and/or working on multiple
modeling tasks in order to foster knowledge about mathematical modeling and its use within mathe-
matics education (Sevis, 2016). Further, modeling activities provide a rich professional development
environment for teachers (Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Lesh, Doerr et al., 2003). Certainly, during these
applications, they not only developed important ideas about the nature of mathematical modeling but
also developed big ideas and skills about different dimensions of the pedagogy of mathematical
modeling through observing and systematically reflecting on the practices of the instructor.
Further, the pre-service teachers enhanced their conceptual models of handling the diversity of
students’ ways of thinking by observing their colleagues and by analyzing high school students’
solutions. Again, the teacher role, as played by the instructor during in-class modeling activities,
provided the pre-service teachers with a “role model” that they themselves could follow. They
directly observed how a teacher would evaluate different ways of thinking by asking questions,
and how to listen, understand, and guide students. However, it should be noted here that although
the instructor did not directly give the correct answer, he occasionally took an evaluative orientation
during the interventions (Doerr, 2006; Doerr & English, 2006). After listening to and understanding
the pre-service teachers’ way of thinking, he sometimes asked pre-planned questions, which pro-
vided the pre-service teachers with a helpline and guided their thinking. He sometimes used
interpretive orientation during the interventions. Nevertheless, the pre-service teachers frequently
expressed themselves positively about the intervention style of the instructor and they indicated a
preference for similar strategies. Examining student work also provided them with additional context
in which they learned about other possible ways of student thinking in modeling.
The pre-service teachers indicated the necessity of group work, allocating enough time for group
presentations and classroom discussions as among the major issues of classroom management
during modeling implementations, which have also been mentioned in the literature (e.g.,
Antonius et al., 2007; Burkhardt, 2006; English, 2003; Zawojewski et al., 2003; Zbiek & Conner,
2006). However, the pre-service teachers realized that they were not fully aware of what was going on
in practice, on the part of the teacher, until their experience of implementing a modeling activity. As
presented in the results, pre-service teachers reported that they faced two major difficulties during
the modeling implementation, which are (1) the difficulty of understanding and handling questions
coming from different groups, and (2) the difficulty of guiding students without providing summa-
tive feedback. The difficulties indicated by pre-service teachers are reminiscent of the changing
practices of teachers during modeling implementations. Considering the types of interventions seen
during the modeling implementations, as categorized by Kaiser and Stender (2013), the pre-service
teachers indicated their difficulty in providing general-strategic help, and their orientation toward
using motivational help, feedback help, and content-oriented strategic help. In fact, the difficulty
indicated by pre-service teachers was that of adopting a new pedagogical stance, that of shifting from
evaluative orientation to interpretive orientation (Didis et al., 2016; Doerr & English, 2006). On the
other hand, these difficulties may also be related to the teachers’ knowledge about students’ ways of
thinking (Doerr & Lesh, 2011; Zawojewski et al., 2003). Knowledge about changing roles of teachers
during modeling implementations, as well as the knowledge about diverse student thinking, may
contribute to teachers’ success in classroom management.
Although there have been some efforts on designing and implementing mathematical modeling
courses, while some of these studies aimed to develop pre-service teachers’ modeling competencies
(e.g., Borromeo Ferri & Blum, 2010; Maaß & Gurlitt, 2009), some of them intended to teach
mathematical modeling in a technical way and mathematics with its applications (e.g., Kaiser &
Schwarz, 2006; Lingefjärd, 2002b, 2006). The content of the modeling course developed in the
current study focused on the pedagogy of mathematical modeling. When compared with the courses
mentioned in the literature, solving modeling tasks, using technology during the modeling process
and group work were the significant aspects of commonality. The course-sized research site in the
current study covered theoretical and practical levels of mathematical modeling. The course involved
further components such as analysis of students’ ways of thinking, development and implementation
of modeling tasks, and systematic reflections on pedagogical issues related to using modeling in the
teaching of mathematics.
Although the results at the teacher level supported most of our preconceived notions about the
pedagogy of mathematical modeling, we observed a few key points for further iterations of the
course such as (1) the critical aspect of the “teacher role” played by the instructor during modeling
implementations, and (2) the need for more experience of modeling implementations for pre-service
teachers. First, the experimentation of the course in several iterations indicated that “the teacher
role” demonstrated by the instructor proved to be valuable source of information for pre-service
teachers and should be carefully considered for future iterations. The pre-service teachers frequently
referred to the role played by the instructor during the modeling applications. This can be inter-
preted as confirming pre-service teachers’ conceptions about the pedagogical principles and strate-
gies regarding teaching mathematics through modeling can be fostered, to some extent, through an
instructor acting as a role model for them. On the other hand, students may not be able to put their
theoretical knowledge about the pedagogical principles of mathematical modeling into practice while
teaching. Therefore, instructors or researchers should instead develop their practical knowledge of
pedagogy of mathematical modeling. For instance, in the current study, even though the instructor
knows the principle of minimal teacher help, he occasionally took directive and evaluative orienta-
tion during the interventions (Doerr, 2006; Doerr & English, 2006).
Second, the data indicated that pre-service teachers need more experiences of modeling implemen-
tations to develop their practical skills. Throughout the course, the pre-service teachers gained only a
brief amount of modeling implementation experience. Although this experience provided them with
important ideas about the pedagogy of mathematical modeling, it highlighted a need for more teaching
experience in order for them to be able to put these ideas into practice. As indicated by Doerr and Lesh
(2011), the classroom is “a potential site for teachers’ continued learning (or model development)”
(p. 263). Therefore, having pre-service teachers implement modeling tasks in different settings including
undergraduate courses such as “Methods for Teaching Mathematics” and “Student Teaching” can
support them to develop increasingly sophisticated ways of interpreting and responding to classroom
events. As Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Swennen (2007) noted, “Connecting learning experiences within
teacher education to the student teachers’ own practices can be beneficial” (p. 592). In future iterations,
if the courses can be planned in a synchronized way, the “developing and implementing modeling tasks”
component of the modeling course can also be practiced within the content of courses such as “Methods
for Teaching Mathematics” or “Student Teaching.” On the other hand, to be able to focus more deeply
on the issues about the pedagogy of mathematical modeling, general knowledge about mathematical
modeling such as modeling phases, modeling competencies, and modeling techniques could be covered
under a separate prerequisite course.
Conclusions
We should acknowledge the many challenges of conducting and reporting such course-sized design-based
research. However, our findings support that the course-sized research conducted in the current study
contributed to pre-service teachers developing interacting conceptual models about the nature and
pedagogy of mathematical modeling. First, pre-service teachers conceptualized the meaning of mathema-
tical modeling and its relation with conceptual understanding. They indicated the necessity of modeling
tasks in order to give meaning to mathematical concepts in realistic contexts. They also realized the
properties of modeling tasks, and developed positive attitudes toward using these tasks in the classroom.
Second, by analyzing high school students’ work and while implementing the modeling tasks, the pre-
service teachers became aware of the diversity of students’ thinking. Third, the pre-service teachers
developed conceptions about the pedagogy of mathematical modeling; also, they developed some basic
pedagogical skills of implementing modeling tasks in teaching mathematics. Yet, we felt the need for more
experiences of modeling implementations for pre-service teachers in order to develop their practical skills
so that their conceptual models could be revised and extended. To do this, we would suggest integrating
this course with courses requiring teaching practice. Finally, we observed the importance of the teacher
role played by the instructor in terms of providing a “good role model” for pre-service teachers.
To conclude, further studies experimenting with the course offered in the current study in
different settings may contribute to the existing body of literature in terms of describing the
pedagogy of mathematical modeling and ways of developing teachers’ knowledge about it.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Professor Lyn English and Professor Richard Lesh for their helpful suggestions and
feedback through several drafts. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments and criticism.
Funding
The research reported here was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
(TÜBİTAK) under grant number 110K250. Ayhan Kursat ERBAS is supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences
through the Young Scientist Award Program (A.K.E./TÜBA-GEBİP/2012-11).
ORCID
Bulent Cetinkaya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6661-7957
Mahmut Kertil http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0633-7144
Ayhan Kursat Erbas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2346-031X
Cengiz Alacaci http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3517-1187
Erdinc Cakiroglu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1182-0752
References
Abramovich, S. (2013). Modeling as isomorphism: The case of teacher education. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R.
Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 501–510).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6271-8_43
Antonius, S., Haines, C., Jensen, T. H., Niss, M., & Burkhardt, H. (2007). Classroom activities and the teacher. In W.
Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The
14th ICMI study (pp. 295–308). New York, NY: Springer.
Biembengut, M. S., & Hein, N. (2013). Mathematical modeling: Implications for teaching. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith,
C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp.
481–490). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6271-8_41
Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2006). Teaching mathematical modelling through project work. ZDM - Mathematics
Education, 38(2), 163–177. doi:10.1007/BF02655887
Blum, W. (2011). Can modelling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum,
F. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp.
15–30). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_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 chal-
lenges (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_9
Blum, W., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modeling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical
Modeling and Applications, 1(1), 45–58.
Borba, M. (2009). Potential scenarios for Internet use in the mathematics classroom. ZDM - Mathematics Education,
41, 453–465. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0188-2
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. ZDM -
Mathematics Education, 38(2), 86–95. doi:10.1007/BF02655883
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2010). On the influence of mathematical thinking styles on learners’ modelling behaviour. Journal
FüR Mathematik Didaktik, 31(1), 99–118. doi:10.1007/s13138-010-0009-8
Borromeo Ferri, R., & Blum, W. (2010). Mathematical modelling in teacher education—Experiences from a modelling
seminar. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Congress of the
European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2046–2055). Lyon, France: Institut National de
Recherche Pédagogique.
Brady, C., Lesh, R., & Sevis, S. (2015). Extending the reach of the models and modelling perspective: A course-sized research
site. In G. A. Stillman, W. Blum, & M. S. Biembengut (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education research and practice:
Cultural, social and cognitive influences (pp. 55–66). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18272-8_4
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Brown, C., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 209–242). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bukova-Güzel, E. (2010). An examination of pre-service mathematics teachers’ approaches to construct and solve
mathematical modelling problems. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 30(1), 19–36. doi:10.1093/teamat/
hrq015
Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and the future. ZDM -
Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In E. Dubinsky, A. H.
Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (Vol. 7, pp. 114–162). Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society.
Carlson, M., Larsen, S., & Lesh, R. (2003). Integrating models and modeling perspective with existing research and
practice. In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modelling perspective on
mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 465–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in
primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20. doi:10.1086/461846
Çiltaş, A., & Işık, A. (2013). The effect of instruction through mathematical modelling on modelling skills of
prospective elementary mathematics teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 1187–1192.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understanding learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R.
A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 68–95). New York: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315759593.ch4
Delice, A., & Kertil, M. (2015). Investigating the representational fluency of pre-service mathematics teachers in a
modeling process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 631–656. doi:10.1007/s10763-
013-9466-0
Didis, M. G., Erbas, A. K., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., & Alacaci, C. (2016). Exploring prospective secondary
mathematics teachers’ interpretation of student thinking through analysing students’ work in modelling.
Mathematics Education Research Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s13394-016-0170-6
Doerr, H. M. (2006). Examining the tasks of teaching when using students’ mathematical thinking. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 62(1), 3–24. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-4437-9
Doerr, H. M. (2007). What knowledge do teachers need for teaching mathematics through applications and modeling?
In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education:
The 14th ICMI study (pp. 69–78). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_5
Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2006). Middle grade teachers’ learning through students’ engagement with modeling
tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 5–32. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-9004-x
Doerr, H. M., & Lesh, R. (2011). Models and modelling perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics in the twenty-
first century. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 247–268). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_26
Doerr, H. M., & Pratt, D. (2008). The learning of mathematics and mathematical modeling. In M. K. Heid, & G. W.
Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research syntheses (Vol. 1, pp.
259–285). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
English, L. D. (2003). Reconciling theory, research, and practice: A models and modeling perspective. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 54, 225–248. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000006167.14146.7b
Eraslan, A. (2011). Prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ perceptions on model eliciting activities and their
effects on mathematics learning. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 364–377.
Erbaş, A. K., Kertil, M., Çetinkaya, B., Çakıroğlu, E., Alacacı, C., & Baş, S. (2014). Mathematical modeling in mathematics
education: Basic concepts and approaches. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 1607–1627.
Galbraith, P., Stillman, G., & Brown, J. (2013). Turning ideas into modeling problems. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R.
Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 243–283).
Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Assessment and evaluation—Overview. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss
(Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 405–408). New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_44
Galbraith, P. L. (2012). Models of modelling: Genres, purposes or perspectives. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and
Application, 1(5), 3–16.
Henn, H.-W. (2007). Modeling pedagogy—Overview. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.),
Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 321–324). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_33
Hjalmarson, M. A., & Lesh, R. A. (2008). Engineering and design research: Intersections for education research and
design. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp.
96–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
InterMath (n.d.). Bouncing ball. Retrieved from http://intermath.coe.uga.edu/topics/algebra/functns/r14.htm
Julie, C., & Mudaly, V. (2007). Mathematical modelling of social issues in school mathematics in South Africa. In W.
Blum, P. Galbraith, M. Niss, & H.-W. Henn (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th
ICMI study (pp. 503–510). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_58
Kaiser, G. (2007). Modelling and modelling competencies in school. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S.
Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics (pp. 110–119). Chichester, UK:
Horwood.
Kaiser, G. (2014). Mathematical modelling and applications in education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education (pp. 396–404). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_101
Kaiser, G., Blomhøj, M., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Towards a didactical theory for mathematical modelling. ZDM -
Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Borromeo Ferri, R., & Stillman, G. (2011). Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical
modelling–Preface. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 1–5). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_1
Kaiser, G., & Maaß, K. (2007). Modeling in lower secondary mathematics classroom -Problems and opportunities. In
W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The
14th ICMI study (pp. 99–108). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_8
Kaiser, G., & Schwarz, B. (2006). Mathematical modelling as bridge between school and university. ZDM -
Kaiser, G., Schwarz, B., & Tiedemann, S. (2013). Future teachers’ professional knowledge on modeling. In R. Lesh, P.
L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13
(pp. 433–444). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6271-8_37
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modeling in mathematics education.
ZDM - Mathematics Education, 38(3), 302–310. doi:10.1007/BF02652813
Kaiser, G., & Stender, P. (2013). Complex modeling problems in co-operative, self-directed learning environments. In
G. A. Stillman, et al., (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 277–293).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6540-5_23
Kertil, M. (2008). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerilerinin modelleme sürecinde incelenmesi
[Investigating problem solving ability of pre-service mathematics teachers in modeling process] (Unpublished
master’s dissertation). Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
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
the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 279–288). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_28
Kuntze, S., Siller, H.-S., & Vogl, C. (2013). Teachers’ self-perceptions of their pedagogical content knowledge related to
modelling – an empirical study with Austrian teachers. In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.),
Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 317–326). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6540-5_26
Lesh, R., Carmona, G., & Moore, T. (2010). Six sigma learning gains and long term retention of understanding and
attitudes related to models & modeling. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 19–54.
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. doi:10.1007/
s10758-007-9121-3
Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003). Model development sequences. In R. Lesh, &
H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving,
learning, and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003a). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching,
learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling
perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003b). In what ways does a models and modeling perspective move beyond constructivism.
In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem
solving, learning and teaching (pp. 519–556). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., Doerr, H. M., Carmona, G., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 5(2&3), 211–233. doi:10.1080/10986065.2003.9680000
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for
students and teachers. In R. Lesh, & A. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science
education (pp. 591–645). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In A. E. Kelly, &
R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 665–708). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2&3), 109–129. doi:10.1080/10986065.2003.9679996
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Lesh, R. A., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R. A., Kelly, A. E., & Yoon, C. (2008). Multitiered design experiments in mathematics, science, and technology
education. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp.
131–148). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315759593.ch7
Lingefjärd, T. (2000). Mathematical modeling by prospective teachers using technology (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Lingefjärd, T. (2002a). Teaching and assessing mathematical modelling. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 21(2),
75–83. doi:10.1093/teamat/21.2.75
Lingefjärd, T. (2002b). Mathematical modeling for pre-service teachers: A problem from anesthesiology. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 117–143. doi:10.1023/A:1021122431218
Lingefjärd, T. (2006). Faces of mathematical modeling. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 38(2), 96–112. doi:10.1007/
BF02655884
Lingefjärd, T. (2007). Mathematical modelling in teacher education—Necessity or unnecessarily. In W. Blum, P. L.
Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI
study (pp. 333–340). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_35
Lingefjärd, T., & Meier, S. (2010). Teachers as managers of the modelling process. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 22(2), 92–107. doi:10.1007/BF03217568
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23(5), 586–601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001
Maaß, K. (2005). Barriers and opportunities for the integration of modelling in mathematics classes: Results of an
empirical study. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 24(2–3), 61–74. doi:10.1093/teamat/hri019
Maaß, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM - Mathematics Education, 38(2), 113–142. doi:10.1007/
BF02655885
Maaß, K., & Gurlitt, J. (2009). Designing a teacher questionnaire to evaluate professional development in modelling. In
V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Vavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2056–2065). Lyon, France: Institut National de Recherche
Pédagogique.
Maaß, K., & Gurlitt, J. (2011). LEMA-Professional development of teachers in relation to mathematical modeling. In
G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical
modeling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 629–639). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_60
Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss
(Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 3–32). New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_1
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: ICTMA 13
(pp. 511–517). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6271-8_44
Pead, D., Ralph, B., & Muller, E. (2007). Uses of technologies in learning mathematics through modeling. In W. Blum,
P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th
ICMI study (pp. 309–318). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_32
Schmidt, B. (2011). Modelling in the classroom: Obstacles from the teacher’s perspective. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R.
Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp.
641–651). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_61
Schorr, R., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach for providing teacher development. In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr
(Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and
teaching (pp. 141–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sevis, S. (2016). Unpacking teacher knowledge for bridging in- and out-of-school mathematics using mathematically-rich
and contextually-realistic problems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations (UMI No: 10143631).
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2011). Evolution of applications and modelling in a senior secondary curriculum. In G.
Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical
modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 689–700). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_66
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Superfine, A. C., & Wagreich, P. (2010). Developing mathematics knowledge for teaching in a content course: A
“Design Experiment” involving mathematics educators and mathematicians. In D. Mewborn (Ed.), Scholarly
practices and inquiry in the preparation of mathematics teachers (pp. 15–27). San Diego, CA: Association of
Mathematics Teacher Educators.
Swetz, F., & Hartzer, J. S. (1991). Mathematical modeling in the secondary school curriculum: A resource guide of
classroom exercises. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Tan, L. S., & Ang, K. C. (2015). A school-based professional development programme for teachers of mathematical
modeling in Singapore. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/
s10857-015-9305-z
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Villarreal, M., Esteley, C., & Mina, M. (2010). Modeling empowered by information and communication technologies.
ZDM - Mathematics Education, 42, 405–419. doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0248-7
Vorhölter, K., Kaiser, G., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2014). Modelling in mathematics classroom instruction: An
innovative approach for transforming mathematics education. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming
mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-04993-9_3
Wake, G. D. (2011). Teachers’ professional learning: Modelling at the boundaries. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo
Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 653–662).
Yu, S. Y., & Chang, C. K. (2011). What did Taiwan mathematics teachers think of model-eliciting activities and
modelling teaching? In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning
of mathematical modelling: ICTMA 14 (pp. 147–156). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_16
Zawojewski, J., Lesh, R., & English, L. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning
activities. In R. Lesh, & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on problem
solving, learning and instruction in mathematics and science education (pp. 337–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Zbiek, R. M., & Conner, A. M. (2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modeling as a context for
deepening students’ understanding of curricular mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 89–112.
doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9002-4
Appendix
Table A1. Weekly course schedule.

Weeks Topic
1 Overview and organization of the course
2 Activity I (The Summer Job)
Technology and mathematical modeling: An overview of MS Excel
3 Activity II (The Ferris Wheel). Discussion of Activity II
4 Activity III (The Street Parking). Discussion of Activity III
5 Analyzing ways of students’ thinking related to Activity III
Analyzing a set of modeling activities and discussion on the nature of mathematical
modeling and the characteristics of mathematical modeling activities.
6 Activity IV (The Bouncing Ball)
Discussion on the nature of mathematical modeling and role of group work
7 Analyzing ways of students’ thinking related to Activity IV
Discussion on the role of a teacher in teaching mathematical modeling activities.
8 Activity V (The Rollercoaster)
Discussion on in-class applications of modeling
9 Analyzing ways of students’ thinking related to Activity V
Discussion on the nature of mathematical modeling activities and on the modeling process.
10 Activity VI (The Water Tank). Discussion of Activity VI
11 Analyzing ways of students’ thinking related to Activity VI
Developing a plan for classroom application of a modeling activity
12 Implementations of modeling activities in class prepared by groups
15 The general evaluation of the semester

Cetinkaya2016 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cetinkaya2016 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mathematical Thinking and Learning

ISSN: 1098-6065 (Print) 1532-7833 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20

Pre-service Teachers’ Developing Conceptions

Bulent Cetinkaya, Mahmut Kertil, Ayhan Kursat Erbas, Himmet Korkmaz,

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1219932

Published online: 10 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Pre-service Teachers’ Developing Conceptions about the Nature

Teaching mathematics through modeling

Mathematical modeling in teacher education

Conceptualization, development, and implementation of a modeling course

Pedagogy of mathematical modeling

Method: A multitiered design study

The participants and the research context

Design and implementation of the course

In-class modeling activities

The Water Tank

Developing and implementing a mathematical modeling task

In-class theoretical discussions and reflections

Conceptions about the nature of mathematical modeling

Conceptions about students’ ways of thinking

PT15: Is the graph wrong?

Instructor: What do you think about this solution?

Conceptions about the teacher role and classroom management

Table A1. Weekly course schedule.

S-ar putea să vă placă și