Chapter 17

Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle:

Through a Teaching Practice Example
for Pre-service Teachers

Akio Matsuzaki and Akihiko Saeki

Abstract A proposed dual modelling cycle is illustrated with a typical dual

modelling cycle example. The purpose is to verify some stages of a dual model-
ling cycle. In a typical case, the dual modelling cycle indicates switching between
two modelling cycles, for example between those for an Oil Tank Task and a
Toilet Paper Tube Task. Some modellers might imagine a toilet paper tube from
an Oil Tank Task because the tank shape and the spiral banister are similar to an
intact toilet paper tube and when it is slit, respectively. Verification methods are
(1) to conduct experimental classes for pre-service teachers, and (2) to analyse
their worksheets for evidence of the dual modelling cycle. We confirm that the
intended transition to answer the initial Oil Tank Task was enabled by consider-
ation of the other model/situation.

1  D
 ual Modelling Cycle Framework for Responding
to Diversities of Modellers

Each modeller’s modelling cycle potentially differs from another’s. We distinguish

three types of modelling cycle (single, double and dual) based on what we call a
dual modelling cycle framework as theoretically elaborated and illustrated in Saeki
and Matsuzaki (2013). Models and connections between variables used to construct
models change during modelling (Borromeo Ferri 2007; Matsuzaki 2007, 2011;
Stillman 1996; Stillman and Galbraith 1998), and a modeller might tackle tasks or

A. Matsuzaki (*)
Faculty of Education, Saitama University, Saitama, Japan
e-mail: makio@mail.saitama-u.ac.jp
A. Saeki
Graduate School of Education, Naruto University of Education, Naruto, Japan
e-mail: asaeki@naruto-u.ac.jp

G.A. Stillman et al. (eds.), Teaching Mathematical Modelling: Connecting 195

to Research and Practice, International Perspectives on the Teaching
and Learning of Mathematical Modelling, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6540-5_17,
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
196 A. Matsuzaki and A. Saeki

problems along the way that are different from the initial modelling task. A dual
modelling cycle framework is constructed from the modelling cycle of Blum and
Leiß (2007), and is duplicated for progression through a corresponding modelling
task to progress the modelling of the initial task. In a typical case, the dual model-
ling cycle indicates switching between these modelling cycles.
The purpose of this chapter is to verify the existence of some stages of a dual
modelling cycle. The first method of verifying was to conduct experimental classes
for undergraduate university students who were interested in mathematics education
or would like to become a mathematics teacher. The second method was to analyse
their worksheets for evidence of a dual modelling cycle. Through these analyses, we
would like to develop teaching materials matched to each school level.

2  Modelling Tasks and Dual Modelling Cycle

In this chapter, we use the following two modelling tasks that are distinguished and
described in a dual modelling cycle.

2.1  Modelling Tasks

The Oil Tank Task is an initial modelling task and we provide the modeller with the
following second task, the Toilet Paper Tube Task, to explore the length of a spiral
banister of an oil tank.

Oil Tank Task

We would like to measure the length of
a spiral banister of a heavy oil tank.
However, it is out of bounds except for the
persons concerned with the safety control
of the oil tank. Therefore we cannot mea-
sure with a tape measure directly.
We found out the sizes of the diameter
(9.766 m) at the bottom and the height
(10.772 m) of an oil tank by speaking to
the persons concerned. Based on these
data, we decided to find the length of the
spiral banister of the oil tank.
(O1) What kind of methods do you use
to answer?
(O2) Let’s actually answer.
17  Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle: Through a Teaching Practice Example… 197

Toilet Paper Tube Task

(T1) Have you ever opened a toilet paper tube? (Yes or No)
(T2) What kind of shape do you think will form when the toilet paper tube is
opened along its slit? Please select from the following shapes and write also
about the reason for this selection.

(a) Rectangle (b) Parallelogram (c) Curve-1

(d) Curve-2 (e) Triangle (f) Others

Stillman (2007), commenting on the issue of task authenticity for upper secondary
level students, distinguished the following two directions of task authenticity, “Firstly,
there is objective authenticity that comes from the real world. Secondly, there is sub-
jective authenticity that comes from the situation being modelled being authentic to
the modeller” (p. 464). We prepare the above Toilet Paper Tube Task mainly from the
perspective of the second direction of task authenticity.

2.2  Dual Modelling Cycle

Now we set these two tasks in our dual modelling cycle framework as described in
Chap. 7, and we distinguish three stages of modelling progress (see Fig. 17.1). The
Oil Tank Task is treated in the first modelling cycle and the Toilet Paper Tube Task
is treated in the second modelling cycle. So the first method of verifying is to
develop an imagined model of an oil tank by developing a model of a toilet paper
tube. Firstly, we will explain the experimental classes based on these three stages.
We describe the flow of experimental classes and how the tasks were treated. In
the first lesson, we presented the Oil Tank Task to the students and asked them to
solve the problem (O1). The students showed their own solution(s), and we asked
them to point out the necessary things to solve their solution(s). In the second
lesson, we presented a picture of a toilet paper tube that is one of several similar
models of an oil tank with a spiral guard rail or banister (e.g., a sign pole which can
be seen in the front of a barber’s shop or a screw), and the students tackled the Toilet
198 A. Matsuzaki and A. Saeki

Fig. 17.1  A dual modelling cycle diagram

Paper Tube Task. After tackling this task, we handed an actual toilet paper tube to
each student and they confirmed the form its opening has. In the third lesson, the
students explored mathematical relationships between lengths and angle and applied
the result to the Oil Tank Task. After these activities, we presented the actual length
of the spiral banister, and the students were asked about the difference between the
actual length and their mathematical result for a spiral banister.

3  T
 he First Method of Verifying the Purpose
of Our Research

We conducted two classes with pre-service teachers (N = 66) who were undergradu-
ate university students preparing to be mathematics teachers. In the future they will
mainly become primary and lower secondary school teachers. They were in the
third year of their 4-year course. The first class was conducted in 2nd semester 2010
and the second in 1st semester 2011. The subject studied was Teaching Secondary
School Mathematics and the teacher of both classes was the first author. The goals
of this subject were to understand teaching materials and methods of secondary
mathematics. Selected teaching materials in the subject were intended to be applied
mathematics or links between mathematics and other subjects. It is necessary for us
to understand and analyse responses of the students, because we would like to
develop teaching materials matched to each school level and have plans for lesson
implementation.

3.1  F
 irst Stage: Transition from Modelling Cycle of Oil Tank
to Toilet Paper Tube Cycle

Firstly, the university students tackled problem (O1) of the Oil Tank Task. Some
students might find an answer directly to the Oil Tank Task whilst others might set
17  Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle: Through a Teaching Practice Example… 199

The length of slit

128mm

80mm

38 °

183mm

Fig. 17.2  Dimensions of a toilet paper tube

an original task for themselves. In this teaching practice the students were asked to
foreshadow their own solution, and the teacher asked, ‘Are there similar things to a
spiral banister of the oil tank?’ The teacher intended that the students would imple-
ment a transition from the modelling cycle of an oil tank. Following this the teacher
provided an actual toilet paper tube to each student. If modellers do not imagine a
toilet paper tube from the Oil Tank Task, the teacher can present a toilet paper tube.
At this point, the Toilet Paper Tube Task could be: ‘How long is a spiral of a toilet
paper tube?’ The shape of an oil tank and a spiral banister are similar to an intact
toilet paper tube and when it is slit, respectively.

3.2  Second Stage: Modelling of Toilet Paper Tube

Secondly, the students tackled problems (T1) and (T2) of the Toilet Paper Tube
Task. Thus, the new situation and the problem in the modelling cycle of a toilet
paper tube are based on the Toilet Paper Tube Task which differs from the initial real
situation and problem located in the modelling cycle of the oil tank of a dual model-
ling cycle. Following this, the students opened the toilet paper tube along its slit.
The shape of the opened toilet paper tube is a parallelogram and it is easy to mea-
sure the lengths (slit is 183 mm) and angles (see Fig. 17.2).

3.3  T
 hird Stage: Transition from Modelling Cycle of Toilet
Paper Tube to Oil Tank Cycle

Thirdly, the students tackled the problem (O1) again and the problem (O2) of the
Oil Tank Task based on these data from a toilet paper tube (Fig. 17.2). As shown in
Fig. 17.3, necessary data to explore the length of a spiral banister of an oil tank are
slope 26° and height from ground to the spiral banister (1.050 m) in addition to the
initial data (diameter of tank is 9.766 m at the bottom and the height is 10.772 m)
which is given in the task statement.
200 A. Matsuzaki and A. Saeki

30665.24 mm
The length of
a spiral banister

9722 mm

26°
26°
19934.39 mm

Fig. 17.3  Model of the oil tank and its developing models

The length of the projection on the ground from the beginning to the end of the
10, 772 − 1, 050 9, 722
spiral banister is = = 19, 934.39 mm.
tan 26° 0.4877
10, 772 − 1, 050 9, 722
Thus, the length of a spiral banister =  = = 22,176.09 mm.
sin 26° 0.4384
Actual length determined by using a tape measure was 19.4 m. (19,400 mm).

4  A
 nalysis of Students’ Responses and Evidence
of a Dual Modelling Cycle

4.1  F
 irst Stage: Transition from Modelling Cycle of Oil Tank
to Toilet Paper Tube Cycle

The students answered problem (O1) of the Oil Tank Task by responding with
what they saw as necessary additional data except for the known dimensions of
the diameter at the bottom and the height of an oil tank. The following data were
what the students wanted to know to solve the task: the beginning point (the
height from the ground) and the end point of the banister, the width of a banister
or space between body of a tank and the banister, and how many times the rail
spiralled around the tank. Some students (4 of 66) drew a diagram of an oil tank
viewed from the top to indicate necessary data for leading to an answer indicat-
ing times around the spiral steps and width of space between the tank and a
banister (as shown in Fig. 17.4).
Almost all students (63 of 66) answered that they would try to draw a develop-
ment and some of them used Archimedes theorem as the method for finding the
length of the spiral banister. Chie, for example, showed the height of a banister from
the ground and considered the circular nature of the spiral (see Fig. 17.5). Nao
described a model as her method to develop a solution as the following: “make a
straight line opened along with a spiral banister” (see Fig. 17.6). Subsequently most
17  Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle: Through a Teaching Practice Example… 201

Width of space between

Necessary data
body of a tank and a banister

View from the top

How many times

around spiral steps?

Fig. 17.4  Evidence of necessary data that Miri wants to know leading to her answer

Fig. 17.5  Chie’s drawing of

a projection figure

Fig. 17.6  Nao’s drawing of a

projection figure The height of a tank The length of a banister

Circumference of a tank

students (56 of 66) drew the development as a rectangle and tried to answer the
problem as exploring the shortest distance.
As other solution ideas, two students (2 of 66) raised alternative ideas: The first
was to make a scale model of an oil tank. Taku wrote: “I will make a model of an oil
tank (1/10 or 1/100 scale) and measure a spiral banister model made by a string, and
extend it to an actual size”. A second idea was to draw a parallelogram or triangle as
a projection figure. Ken drew a parallelogram as a projection figure, but he mistook
the position of the banister (see Fig. 17.7). A projection figure for an oil tank is not
a triangle. Similarly as for problem (T2) of the Toilet Paper Tube Task, this idea is a
mistake (see Saeki and Matsuzaki 2013). Next, we present the Toilet Paper Tube
Task (Sect. 2.1) for providing a transition from the modelling cycle of an oil tank to
the modelling cycle of a toilet paper tube.
202 A. Matsuzaki and A. Saeki

Fig. 17.7  Ken’s erroneous

projection figure

Table 17.1  Pooled responses for problems (T1) and (T2) of the Toilet Paper Tube Task
Response to T2 (form of open tube)
T1 (opened tube or not) Rectangle Parallelogram Curve-1 Curve-2 Triangle Others
Yes 1 31 1 0 2 1
No 0 27 0 1 2 0

4.2  Second Stage: Modelling of Toilet Paper Tube

The teacher provided a toilet paper tube to each student and they tackled the
Toilet Paper Tube Task with this. Initially, the students responded to the prob-
lems without opening a toilet paper tube along its slit. Pooled results from the
two classes of responses for each problem of the Toilet Paper Tube Task are
given in Table 17.1.
Almost all responses (58 of 66) for the shape formed when a toilet paper tube is
opened along its slit (T2) were (b) Parallelogram. This was not related to whether
they had ever opened a toilet paper tube (T1). Subsequently, all students opened the
slit of the toilet paper tube and confirmed or disproved their answers. Almost all
students (63 of 66) had answered problem (O1) of the Oil Tank Task based on a
rectangle, but they answered parallelogram in the Toilet Paper Tube Task. From this
result, we can say that the intended transition, the first stage, from the modelling
cycle of an oil tank to the modelling cycle of a toilet paper tube was successful. On
the other hand, there were a few students who were not able to find the height of the
toilet paper tube in the parallelogram formed from opening the tube.

4.3  T
 hird Stage: Transition from Modelling Cycle of Toilet
Paper Tube to Oil Tank Cycle

The students tried to answer the initial Oil Tank Task again based on the results of
step 5 of the Blum and Leiß (2007) cycle, that is “working mathematically”, in the
modelling cycle of a toilet paper tube. Most students (61 of 66) found their answers
17  Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle: Through a Teaching Practice Example… 203

The length of circumference of base = 9.766π

So, area of side is

Angle of a spiral banister is 26°

Length of a banister is let to be x
From a table of
trigonometric
ratio

Fig. 17.8  Example of working mathematically by Osa

Fig. 17.9  An evidence of working mathematically by Ryo

by using a trigonometric ratio (see Fig. 17.8) and one student found his answer by
focusing on equal area of parallelogram (see Fig. 17.9).
In addition, it is noted that a few students (2 of 66) did not find the height of the
oil tank by developing a parallelogram model. These students did not apply the
relationship between dimensions of a toilet paper tube to the relationship between
dimensions of an oil tank. Although all the students were able to explore the length
of a spiral banister of the oil tank mathematically, there was a significant error giv-
ing a result higher than the actual measurement by using a tape measure. We have
to take into consideration many more of the variables that the students wanted to
know for finding the answer that were pointed out at the beginning of this section.
Thus, we need to refine the model.
Some further suggestions that the students raised for tackling this task included
considering the space between the body of the oil tank and the spiral banister
(580 mm), measurement mistake of slope angle (26°), or number of rotations of the
spiral banister around the tank. The following point regarding lacking data was
204 A. Matsuzaki and A. Saeki

Fig. 17.10  Lacking data

identified by Tomi

raised by Tomi. The beginning point of the spiral banister had not been considered
(see Fig. 17.10). Tomi pointed out that the end point of a spiral banister is lower than
the top of the oil tank and the beginning of the rail must also be higher than the bot-
tom of the oil tank. Tomi assumed that these heights in total were 2 m to refine the
calculation. Actually, the measured height is 820 mm.

5  Discussion and Conclusion

In this chapter we verified some stages of a dual modelling cycle empirically. We

prepared two modelling tasks: the first one is the Oil Tank Task and the second one
is the Toilet Paper Tube Task. The method of verification was to conduct experimen-
tal classes for pre-service teachers who were undergraduate university students and
to analyse their worksheets for evidence of a dual modelling cycle. For discussing
this evidence, we distinguished three stages for the dual modelling cycle.
Before the transition from the first stage, most students drew the development
as a rectangle and tried to answer the problem (O1). However, after the transition
at the first stage, most students answered that the opened form of toilet paper
tube along its slit was a parallelogram (T2). This intended transition was to
enable them to answer the Oil Tank Task again by another model. At the third
stage, all the students were able to explore the length of a spiral banister of the
oil tank mathematically. However, the solution differed significantly from the
actual measurement. For a more acceptable solution modellers have to take into
consideration many more variables. Thus, we would hope that modellers could
refine the model through the dual modelling cycle. A dual modelling cycle frame-
work as proposed appears to have potential for drawing modellers’ attention to
the possibility of solving the task at hand by first solving a related problem as
Polya (1988) suggested.
17  Evidence of a Dual Modelling Cycle: Through a Teaching Practice Example… 205

Acknowledgement  Mr. Kurokawa Hiroshi (Tokushima office, Nisshinbo Holdings Inc.)

allowed us to measure a heavy oil tank and introduced the staff concerned. Mr. Kurebayashi
Yutaka (Tokai Seishi Kogyo Co., LTD.) gave us a factory tour and explained the process of
making the toilet paper tube. Mr. Kainuma Kenji (Anan office, Asahi Synchrotech Corporation)
provided important plan data of the heavy oil tank. Thanks to all concerned.

References

Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In
C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12):
Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2007). Modelling problems from a cognitive perspective. In C. Haines,
P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12): Education,
engineering and economics (pp. 260–270). Chichester: Horwood.
Matsuzaki, A. (2007). How might we share models through cooperative mathematical modelling?
Focus on situations based on individual experiences. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, &
M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study
(pp. 357–364). New York: Springer.
Matsuzaki, A. (2011). Using response analysis mapping to display modellers’ mathematical mod-
elling progress. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in
teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14 (pp. 499–507). New York:
Springer.
Polya, G. (1988). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method (1st Princeton Science
Library ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Saeki, A., & Matsuzaki, A. (2013). Dual modelling cycle framework for responding to the diversities
of modellers. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical
modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 89–99). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stillman, G. (1996). Mathematical processing and cognitive demand in problem solving.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 174–197.
Stillman, G. (2007). Upper secondary perspectives on applications and modelling. In W. Blum,
P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics
education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 463–468). New York: Springer.
Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections:
Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
36(2), 157–195.