What Did Taiwan Mathematics Teachers Think of Model-Eliciting

Activities And Modeling?

Shih-Yi Yu and Ching-Kuch Chang

Graduate Institute of Science Education,
National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan
sheree318@yahoo.com.tw and ckuchang@gmail.com
Abstract:

This article reports the sixteen secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions and obstacles of
modeling after experiencing three model-eliciting activities (MEAs, Lesh & Doerr, 2003) and
designing one MEA in a nine-week course linked to a master’s degree program in education for
in-service teachers. Data collections included the learning sheets that showed teachers’
strategies of the three MEAs and the results of the MEA they designed, observation journals,
reflection journals, questionnaires, interview reports and video tapes of the classes. The results
showed that teachers regarded modeling as a problem solving process, and agreed with the
advantages of implementing the MEAs in math classrooms; they also mentioned obstacles of
implementing MEA and designing MEA.

1. Background
Researches emphasized more and more on the issues of enhancing students’ mathematical
competency recently in mathematics education (Niss, 2003; Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007).
Developing students’ modeling ability is one effective teaching strategy (Niss, 2003; Lesh &
Doerr, 2003). Recently, the issues of model and modeling perspective gradually get more and
more attention in Taiwan. Some empirical researches focused on the investigations of modeling
contests. Some talked about modeling teaching that related to specific mathematical contents
such as linear function, parabolic equations. Their results showed students’ positive learning
motivations or learning effects. On relative researches of teachers’ aspect, they focused on the
problem solving strategies of pre-service teachers and the results mentioned that the modeling
activities and teaching need to correspond to students’ experience and technology is also worthy
to consider. The other research investigated the latent mechanism underlying the case teacher’s
reflection in the modeling context collaborating with the researcher and the results showed the
effects to teachers’ professional development in practice. These empirical studies revealed the
approvals of modeling teaching in Taiwan.
But looking closely in the teaching practice, most mathematics teachers taught in lecture and
1
they usually transferred the mathematical knowledge to students that in the teaching process.
Students just need to listen to what teachers told them and lack of thinking by themselves. Over
a long period of time, we found that students got used to memorize the formula and calculated
well in the condition of not knowing why and how. Under these circumstances, students hardly
develop multiple mathematical competencies in their school mathematics classes. Comparing
this reality to these empirical studies, we noticed that we need to pay more attention on teachers’
thought and the aspect of teaching practice. On the other hand, we also tried to phase in the
MEAs to our mathematics classrooms in order to amend the strait and promote students’
thinking, explaining and interpreting opportunities. The crucial reason we used modeling
activities was that in such activities students have to describe, manipulate, predict and verify
(Lesh & Doerr, 2003). We hoped that students could enhance the descriptions and interpretations
of what they saw and observed and the ability of problem solving through MEAs. So, the first
problem we needed to face and overcome was to let these teachers learn how to implement
MEAs in their mathematics classes. We designed a course to foster these teachers to get
involved in MEAs and observed how they changed. The purpose of the research was to know
what did Taiwan mathematics teachers think of MEAs and modeling teaching.

2. Theoretical background
We organized the theoretical background of the research into three parts. First were the
components of MEAs, second were the model development sequences and third were six
principles of designing MEAs.

2.1 The components of model-eliciting activity

Lesh and Doerr (2003) referred to “Case Studies for Kids” as many cases of model-eliciting
activities. Each case consisted of four main parts: newspaper articles, readiness questions,
problem statements and process of sharing solutions. The purpose of the newspaper articles and
readiness questions was to introduce the students the context of the problem and students can get
more familiar with the situations of the case via reading the article and readiness questions just
like a warm-up period. The problem statements should be the central part of the teaching and
teachers presented to the students according to the grade level and previous experiences they
have. Whether the students could identify that the client they were working for and the product
they should create must be made sure. Then it came the process of sharing solutions and it was
the stage of presentations of solutions and the teacher tried to encourage students to not only
listen to the other groups’ presentations but to also try to understand the other groups’ solutions
and considered how well these solutions meet the need of the client.

2.2 Model development sequences

The instruction of the study adopted the model development sequences (showed as figure 1.)
(Lesh & Doerr, 2003). The sequences included three stages that were, model-eliciting activity,
model-exploration activity and model-adaptation activity.
2
 Model- Exploration Activity

Model- Eliciting Activity Model- Adaptation Activity

Student

Figure 1. Model development sequences (Lesh & Doerr, 2003, p.40)

In the model-eliciting activity, it usually required one or two full class periods to complete, and
students worked in the group of 3 or 4 persons. They were encouraged to discuss with their
partners and work together. Students were required to express their way of thinking in forms that
visible to teachers, and these were important resources that teachers made their decisions in the
next model-exploring activity.

In the model-exploration activity, it often involved computer graphics, diagrams, or animations

(Lesh, Post, & Behr, 1987). No matter what kinds of the embodiments were used, the main goal
was for students to develop a powerful representation system for making sense of the targeted
conceptual system (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). This system was useful to go beyond thinking with the
relevant conceptual system to also think about it. In particular, students often developed
powerful conceptual tools that can used to crush the problem they were given in the follow-up
model-adaptation activity.

In the model-adaptation activity, also called model-application activities or model -extension

activities, the goal was to modify the tool developed in the model-exploration activity and let the
tool be used in a new situation with some significant adaptations (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). We used
the sequences as teaching strategy in the study to promote the modeling process of students.

2.3 Six principles of designing model-eliciting activity

On the other hand, the six principles that Lesh and Doerr (2003) mentioned to evaluate the
quality of a modeling activity were also crucial points that we considered.

1. Construction principle ensured that the solutions to the activity required the construction of
an explicit description, explanation, procedures, or justified prediction for a given
mathematically significant situation.

2. Reality principle also called the meaningfulness principle and it required the activity to be
designed so that students can interpret it meaningfully from their different levels of
mathematical ability and general knowledge, and also pose a problem that could happen in
real life.

3. Self-assessment principle ensured that the activity contained criteria that students can
identify and use to test and revise their solutions and also include information that students
can assess the usefulness of their alternative solutions.
3
4. Documentation principle ensured the activity required students to create some form of
documentation that can reveal explicitly how they are thinking about the situation.

5. Share-ability and re-usability principle required students to produce more generalized

solutions that others can also use or the solutions can reuse in other similar situations.

6. Effective prototype principle ensured the solution of the activity to be as simple as possible
yet still mathematical significant and provide useful prototypes for interpreting other similar
situations.

3. Methodology and Process

Sixteen secondary mathematics teachers participated in the research. There are eight junior high
school teachers, five senior high school teachers and three vocational school teachers. Six
teachers taught less than five years, five teachers taught six to ten years and five teachers taught
more than eleven years. They all attended in a nine-week course linked to a master’s degree
program in education for in-service teachers with two hours a week.

The process of the research included two stages. First, these teachers were divided into four
groups with three to five teachers in a group as the role of students engaged in three MEAs, such
as “Who saved the oriental cherry trees?”, “Parking Lot” and “Volleyball problems”. They
cooperatively discussed to solve one MEA in every two weeks (Showed as figure 1). They also
wrote reflection journals to compare these MEAs and show their understanding of modeling
pedagogy. Secondly, they designed one MEA every group and used Six Principles of designing
MEA (Lesh & Doerr, 2003) to evaluate these MEAs by themselves and with each other group.
This evaluative process also showed their perception of mathematics and understanding of
MEA.

Figure 1. Teachers engaged in the “Parking Lot” problem.

Data collections included the learning sheets that showed teachers’ strategies of the three MEAs
and the result of the MEA they designed, researchers’ observation journals, reflection journals,
questionnaires, interview reports and video tapes of the classes.

4. Results and Discussion

These qualitative data such as these teachers’ reflection journals, interview reports and video
4
tapes of the classes were read, coded and categorized repeatedly by two authors. We also
compared the results of the MEA they designed with Six Principles of designing MEA (Lesh &
Doerr, 2003) and attempted to know these teachers’ thinking of MEAs and modeling teaching.
Finally, we analyzed and interpreted these data into three aspects: positive thinking of MEAs
and modeling teaching, negative thinking of modeling teaching and weaknesses of designing
MEAs.

4.1 Positive thinking of MEAs and modeling teaching

According to these teachers’ reflection journals, interview reports and video tapes of the classes,
we concluded the advantages into four aspects, and showed as followed.

4.1.1 Real life situation

Almost all participant teachers expressed this point of view. They regarded MEAs and modeling
teaching relates to real life situation intently. For examples, T22 said “when she experienced
MEA, she felt that mathematics can be constructed from the learning activity of real life
experience”.T3 mentioned that “It was full of math in the modeling process and we used
mathematical language to deal with the problem which was in connection with real life.” T7 and
T24 both showed the idea that MEAs are closer to real life situation than the textbooks.

4.1.2 Open-ended problems

Besides, MEAs are all open-ended problems accompany with a lot of information, so teachers
approved for enhancing students’ competencies relating to learning mathematics. T10 said that
“developing the modeling ability can promoted students’ problem solving ability.” T7 referred to
“creative thinking ability, conjectural ability, induction and categorization, built the model.”
T21 thought that “we ask students to think an integral problem with the concepts which they
learned before, and they needed to use mathematical competencies of logical thinking, data
gathering and data analyzing…. MEAs are divergent problems and the abilities that students
developed were comprehensive. It made students to learn, search for information and analyzed
data actively. ” T30 pointed that “the focus of mathematical modeling was different than
traditional problem solving and changed into transformed and explained the situation,
recognized potential problems, built the model, re-interpreted the premise, hypothesis and biases
of mathematical solution.”

4.1.3 Implementation of MEAs

On the other hand, they also told the advantages of implementing MEAs in school math classes.
T12 noted that “In the process, students needed to talk to each other and utilized peers’ thought
to inspire themselves to think the problem.” T3 emphasized that “students can learn how to
communicate with others, establish good relationship with peers and understand the importance
of respect.” T28 pointed that “the mathematical content was not too difficult for students and it
didn’t make students feel scary.” T30 liked the way of group discussion and he thought it was
5
helpful to students to think problems and also convey their opinions.

4.1.4 Supplement materials

As for the possibilities and for implementing MEAs in school math classes, teachers talked in
the interview and thought that MEAs can work well as supplement materials, and modeling
activities and teaching can be regarded as the corporation or training supplement curriculum.

4.2 Negative thinking of modeling teaching

These teachers mentioned many obstacles of implementing MEA in school math classes. It
included the weak connection of current school curriculum, the influence of the entrance exams
and too easy mathematical contents.

4.2.1 School curriculum

The most common obstacle was the weak connection of current school curriculum. T5
mentioned that “so far, I doubted that whether MEAs can put into the current mathematics
classes and maybe this will be one of my goals in the future.” T21 said that “MEAs were almost
no direct connections with current mathematical textbooks of junior high school.” T24 pointed
that “It seemed not helpful for students to learn school mathematics.” T3 wondered that “how
to transformed the materials in school math into appropriate MEAs?” T10 thought that “not all
units in school math were suitable for transforming into MEAs and it was not necessary to use
modeling teaching.” So, teachers really concerned the connection between MEAs and current
school mathematics curriculum, and they will accept modeling teaching into their classes only
when they are sure the connection is close.

4.2.2 Entrance exams

In addition, the entrance exams of senior high schools and colleges are also the main factors that
teachers resist modeling teaching into their classes. T22 said “my school is a typical private
senior high school that emphasized the rate of entering colleges, so students’ grades were the
most important thing.” T23 mentioned that “how to connect prevalent education system (exam
system) will be the first barrier in the reality!” T30 referred to “the first consideration of
students and teachers was to get higher scores in the entrance exams of colleges.”

4.2.3 Other obstacles

Other obstacles such as “I cannot convey the mathematical concepts which students wanted
most. (T3)” “We spent too much time letting students solve and discuss the MEA, so that we
cannot achieve the rate of progress of school math. (T24)” “Students and I were not familiar
with modeling teaching and MEAs, so we may have the attitude of rejecting this teaching
mode….the group discussion makes chaos in the classroom, and students can’t keep their
concentration. (T30)” “I thought that was a challenge for me to end the open MEA. I don’t
know what to do and it seemed not very interesting. (T23)” Therefore, it will be a tough
6
challenge to open these teachers’ mind to accept modeling teaching in this kind of background
and trend.

4.3 Weaknesses of designing MEAs

In the second part of this course, these teachers designed one MEA in every group. Four groups
produce four MEAs, and it deserved to mention that we just introduced to these teachers about
six principles of designing MEAs. Also, they didn’t read the literatures about model and
modeling perspective. The understanding of MEAs they showed was simply according to the
experience which they engaged into the three MEAs.

Here we described four MEAs that they designed showed as table 1.

Table 1. Four MEAs which was designed by four groups.

Group Topic of the Brief description of the MEA

no. MEA

Group The trip of Four junior students (A, B, C, D) plan to travel from Changhua to
1 Taichung Taichung together. They bring 4000 NT with them and need to buy
specific gifts, such as famous cookies and they also have time
limitation to finish their task. The problem is to arrange a timetable
of their trip and have to consider the money at the same time.

Group The Ask for students’ help to use tiles to reconstruct the wall of the
2 reconstruction campus. The length of the wall is 12 meters and the width is 3
of the campus meters. The shapes of the tiles are rectangles and squares. The
wall colors of the tiles are white and black and the areas of the black
tiles need to be 1/3 to 1/4 of the whole wall. The arrangements of
the tiles are all created by students themselves.

Group The procedure Ask students to design the procedures of the whole day sports
3 design of meeting. The areas include a playground with 200-meter athletic
sports meeting track, four basketball courts. There are 39 classes of the senior
high school and 1 teacher group joining in the sport meetings.
They have to consider the time and sequences of three games,
seven races, the opening and closing ceremonies. Students need to
plan well in order to get the results of all contests on that day.

Group Sampling Let students decide the number of students and the distribution of

7
 4 schools of sampling in order to understand the percentage of
students who got involve into drugs. They also want students to
consider the budgets of their sampling.

In general, these teachers notice that MEAs need to be realistic situation and relating to students’
life experience. Also, they keep the problem as open as possible in order to get a model of
solution. Furthermore, the authors tried to use the six principles ( Lesh & Doerr, 2003) of
designing MEAs to check the MEAs produced by these teachers. Table 2 showed the authors
interpretation based on the corresponding six principles. They also revealed obstacles of
designing MEA that the principles which achieve easily are Reality Principle and The Model
Construction Principle, but the other four were hardly to make it. It meant that how to promote
teachers’ ability to designing MEAs still be the issue to address in the future.

Table 2. MEAs and the corresponding six principles.

Group no. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Topic of the The trip of The The procedure Sampling

MEA Taichung reconstruction design of sports
of the campus meeting
wall

Construction “The design of There were too “The design of The problem
the route of the many limitation procedure of “ How to
trip” was open of students’ the sports sample ” was
but not precise solution. meeting” and too fuzzy.
enough to ask “the rules of
for a general scoring” was
model. too fuzzy.

Reality Correspond Correspond Correspond Not close to

with students’ with students’ with students’ students’ life
life experience life experience life experience, experience
but the
description was
too simplified

8
Self-assessment × × × ×

Documentation × × × ×

Share-ability × × × ×
and re-usability

Effective × × × ×
prototype

5. Conclusion
After nine-week course, we found that these teachers agreed that MEAs were useful to enhance
students’ problem solving ability and they had positive attitudes toward MEAs and modeling.
But they thought that there were still many obstacles to implement MEAs in their mathematics
classes. According to the MEAs that they designed in the end, it showed that they were still lack
of ability to design MEAs to fit in with six principles.

6. Implication
In terms of the research, we noticed that literature review of MEAs and modeling may be
important for these teachers to understand how to implement MEAs in their classroom and
design MEAs. Because lacking of theoretical background, they just pay attention to the surface
characteristic of MEAs. Besides, we found that strengthen the connections between MEAs and
school mathematics curriculum; and improve modeling teaching so as to relate to teaching
practice closely are two important factors to influence these teachers’ thought of MEAs and
modeling.

References
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on
mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. American, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish
KOM project. In Gagarsis, A., & Papastavridis, S. (Eds.), 3rd Mediterranean Conference on
Mathematical Education, (pp.

115-124). Athens, Greece: Hellenic Mathematical Society and Cyprus Mathematical

Society.

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In Lester, F. K., Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp.763-804). Information
Age Pub Inc.