Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An interdisciplinary approach to designing online learning: fostering pre-service mathematics teachers’ capabilities in mathematical modelling

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we describe and evaluate processes utilized to develop an online learning module on mathematical modelling for pre-service teachers. The module development process involved a range of professionals working within the STEM disciplines including mathematics and science educators, mathematicians, scientists, in-service and pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Development of the module was underpinned by Bybee’s five E’s enquiry-based approach and Goos et al.’s twenty-first century numeracy model. Module evaluation data is examined in relation to the quality of pre-service teachers’ learning experiences and interview data from the study is analysed through the lens of ‘boundary crossing’. While the evaluation of the module was generally positive, aspects that required improvement were also identified including more meaningful inclusion of pre-service teachers and other stakeholders in the development process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ärlebäck, J. B. (2009). On the use of realistic Fermi problems for introducing mathematical modelling in school. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(3), 331–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) (2013). STEM: Country comparisons—international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Melbourne: ACOLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomhøj, M., & Hoff Kjeldsen, T. (2006). Teaching mathematical modelling through project work: Experiences from an in-service course for upper secondary teachers. ZDM, 38(2), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2009). Project organised science studies at university level: Exemplarity and interdisciplinarity. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1–2), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). How do teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Gal-braith, W. Blum & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modeling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects—state, trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burghes, D., & Huntley, I. (1982). Teaching mathematical modelling—reflections and advice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 13(6), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. In Paper commissioned for the workshop on exploring the intersection of science education and the development of 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Board on Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cady, J. A., & Rearden, K. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, mathematics, and science. School Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A. (2013). Real-life modeling within a traditional curriculum: Lessons from a Singapore experience. In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum & J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching modeling mathematical: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 131–140). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czocher, J. A. (2016). Introducing modeling transition diagrams as a tool to connect mathematical modeling to mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(2), 77–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal on STEM Education, 3(3), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during transitions in the modelling process. ZDM, 38(2), 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, V. (2011). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of innovative practices with technology and mathematical modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 305–314). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, V. (2017). Designing for mathematical applications and modelling tasks in technology rich environments. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks—potential and pitfalls (pp. 285–302). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, V., Stillman, G., Brown, J., Galbraith, P., & Niss, M. (2017). Using mathematics to solve real world problems: The role of enablers. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0217-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M. (2013). Researcher–teacher relationships and models for teaching development in mathematics education. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(2), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. Silver & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greefrath, G., Siller, H.-S., & Weitendorf, J. (2011). Modelling considering the influence of technology. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (ICTMA 14) (pp. 315–329). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jankvist, U. T., & Niss, M. (2015). A framework for designing a research-based “maths counsellor” teacher programme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(3), 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maaß, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 113–142.

  • Maaß, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modeling tasks. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-010-0010-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousoulides, N. G., Christou, C., & Sriraman, B. (2008). A modeling perspective on the teaching and learning of mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802218132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousoulides, N. G., & English, L. D. (2011). Engineering model eliciting activities for elementary school students. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modeling (pp. 221–230). New York, NY.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics [CCSM]. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School. CCSSM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (2010). Modeling a crucial aspect of students’ mathematical modeling. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 43–59). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist (2012). Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson, G. (2014). From writing to doing: The challenges of implementing integration (and interdisciplinarity) in the teaching of mathematics, sciences, and technology. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 14(4), 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2014). Do multiple solutions matter? Prompting multiple solutions, interest, competence, and autonomy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 497–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schukajlow, S., Krug, A., & Rakoczy, K. (2015). Effects of prompting multiple solutions for modelling problems on students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3), 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, A. (2017). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of interdisciplinary pedagogy: the case of elementary mathematics–science integrated lessons. ZDM, 49(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0821-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., & Myers, M. (2013). Mathematics professional development as design for boundary encounters. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(2), 201 – 21.

  • Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2016). PISA 2015: A first look at Australia’s results. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

  • Wake, G. (2014). Making sense of and with mathematics: The interface between academic mathematics and mathematics in practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Professor Mariella Herberstein, Macquarie University Sydney, to the development of case study materials included in the module described in this article. Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

    Vince Geiger

  2. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Joanne Mulligan & E. Julian May

  3. Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

    Liz Date-Huxtable, Rehez Ahlip, Leanne Rylands & Ian Wright

  4. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    D. Heath Jones

Authors
  1. Vince Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanne Mulligan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liz Date-Huxtable
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rehez Ahlip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Heath Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Julian May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Leanne Rylands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ian Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vince Geiger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geiger, V., Mulligan, J., Date-Huxtable, L. et al. An interdisciplinary approach to designing online learning: fostering pre-service mathematics teachers’ capabilities in mathematical modelling. ZDM Mathematics Education 50, 217–232 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0920-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0920-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation