Advances in Mathematics Education

Scott A. Chamberlin
Bharath Sriraman Editors

Affect in
Mathematical
Modeling
Advances in Mathematics Education

Series Editors
Gabriele Kaiser, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Bharath Sriraman, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA

Editorial Board Members

Ubiratan d’Ambrosio (São Paulo, Brazil)
Jinfa Cai (Newark, NJ, USA)
Helen Forgasz (Melbourne, VIC, Australia)
Jeremy Kilpatrick (Athens, GA, USA)
Christine Knipping (Bremen, Germany)
Oh Nam Kwon (Seoul, Korea)
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8392
Scott A. Chamberlin • Bharath Sriraman
Editors

Affect in Mathematical
Modeling
Editors
Scott A. Chamberlin Bharath Sriraman
School of Teacher Education Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Wyoming University of Montana
Laramie, WY, USA Missoula, MT, USA

ISSN 1869-4918 ISSN 1869-4926 (electronic)

Advances in Mathematics Education
ISBN 978-3-030-04431-2 ISBN 978-3-030-04432-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019936163

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Part I
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition
in Mathematical Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Jonei Cerqueira Barbosa
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . 15
Scott A. Chamberlin
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical
Modeling – An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Katrin Vorhölter, Alexandra Krüger, and Lisa Wendt
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings
to Study Spontaneous Metacognitive Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Marta T. Magiera and Judith S. Zawojewski
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development
of Mathematical Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Lisa B. Warner and Roberta Y. Schorr

Part II
The What and the Why of Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Alan H. Schoenfeld
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling:
Themes and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Peter Kloosterman
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective
on Mathematical Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Gerald A. Goldin

v
vi Contents

Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs

and Emotions in Inquiry-Based Teaching of Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Inés M. Gómez-Chacón and Constantino De la Fuente
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences:
The Practice of Happiness and the Happiness of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Adi Wiezel, James A. Middleton, and Amanda Jansen
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines
and Its Relation to Identity Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Juhaina Awawdeh Shahbari, Michal Tabach, and Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim

Part III
Commentary on Part III: Connections to Theory
and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Morten Blomhøj
Commentary: Flow and Mathematical Modelling:
Issues of Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Lyn D. English
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical
Modeling and Attitude Towards Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Pietro Di Martino
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects
on Students’ Engagement and Attitude Toward Mathematics . . . . . . . . 235
Zakieh Parhizgar and Peter Liljedahl
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment:
A Case Study on Engineering Students’ Experience of Challenge
and Flow During a Compulsory Mathematical Modeling Task . . . . . . . . 257
Thomas Gjesteland and Pauline Vos
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Minnie Liu and Peter Liljedahl
Chapter 13: A Coda on Affect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Bharath Sriraman

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Part I
Commentary on Affect, Cognition
and Metacognition in Mathematical
Modelling

Jonei Cerqueira Barbosa

Abstract In this chapter, I react to the texts by Chamberlin (2019); Vorhölter et al.
(2019); Magiera and Zawojewski (2019); and Warner and Schorr (2019), which
provide powerful insights to analyze mathematical modelling in terms of affect,
cognition, and metacognition. Particularly, I use the sociocultural and sociocritical
lens to discuss the ideas presented by the authors and to propose other questions.

Keywords Affect · Cognition · Metacognition · Sociocultural perspective ·

Sociocritical perspective

Introduction

The past decades have witnessed important theoretical insights on the practice of
mathematical modelling in educational settings (Schukajlow et al. 2018). The
community of researchers has given more attention to the analysis and theorising
of what happens when mathematical modelling has been developed in educational
environments. One of the focuses refers to students’ psychological processes, which
I understand initially as dispositions for action, ways of thinking, and ways of
communicating.
In the case of the section one of this book Affect in Mathematical Modelling, the
chapters by Chamberlin (2019); Vorhölter et al. (2019); Magiera and Zawojewski
(2019); and Warner and Schorr (2019) address the concepts of affect, cognition, and
metacognition. They present powerful ideas that provoke us into thinking about
students’ doings in mathematical modelling activities. These concepts were origi-
nally formulated in the field of psychology, but they have been borrowed by those in
the field of mathematics education. As Lerman (2010) underlines, our area has weak
grammar, which means that it does not produce unambiguous empirical descriptions.
Many conceptualizations compete in the fields, giving rise to what the sociologist

J. C. Barbosa (*)
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
e-mail: jonei.cerqueira@ufba.br

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 3

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_1
4 J. C. Barbosa

B. Bernstein called horizontal structures of knowledge. As a result, I acknowledge

that those descriptions presented by the authors of the book section have theoretical
affiliations that compete in the field of mathematics education as well as others areas
such as psychology and philosophy.
The following commentary is more of a discussion based on my reflection of the
texts than a summary. I cannot separate myself from the theoretical perspectives used
in my research, which are based on the sociocultural theory (Barbosa 2010), the
theory of codes by Basil Bernstein (Oliveira and Barbosa 2013), and Wittgenstein’s
late philosophy (Souza and Barbosa 2014).
Thus, what follows is a constructive dialogue with the authors on the concepts of
affect, cognition, and metacognition and how they are used to analyse students’
doings in mathematical modelling practice. To help the discussion, I am going to
present an illustrative episode of a classroom, which will be used as part of my
arguments. I will clarify my perspective on mathematical modelling so that the
reader might understand how it unfolds in the following discussion. Lastly, I will
examine the notions of affect, cognition, and metacognition presented by the section
authors.

A Classroom Episode

The following episode was extracted from one of Teacher Marcelo’s first mathe-
matical modelling-based lessons. It took place in a public school located in the
Brazilian city of Salvador. Usually, mathematics lessons at the school followed this

Fig. 1 Bay of All Saints, where Salvador City and the island of Itaparica are located. (Source:
https://www.google.com/maps)
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition in Mathematical Modelling 5

sequence: explanation, examples, and exercises. It is similar to what Alrø and

Skovsmose (2002) called the tradition of school mathematics. Teacher Marcelo
got interested in implementing mathematical modelling into his classes after taking
part in an in-service programme.
In the following, students are between 16 and 18 years old, and they enrolled in
the third year of the secondary level. The teacher introduced the problem of building
a bridge between the city of Salvador and Itaparica Island (see Fig. 1). In fact, the
government was planning to build the bridge, and the issue had been discussed in the
local press (Bochicchio 2017).
After a short discussion about how the bridge will affect people’s lives, the
teacher wrote the following question on the board: “What is the best location to
build the bridge? And why?” The teacher allowed students to go online to seek
information on the Internet (using smartphones connected to wireless). The question
was open because assumptions and simplifications should be made, which might
lead to different solutions. The students were organized into groups, and the teacher
visited each group to follow students’ solutions.
At a certain point, Teacher Marcelo approached the group formed by Ana, Lúcia,
and Renato.
[1] Renato: Teacher, we have no idea how to solve it.
[2] Teacher: No idea?
[3] Renato: No!
[4] Lúcia: We were talking about what to find out the shortest distance [between the
island and the mainland].
[5] Teacher: It is one possible answer. But the shortest distance is the best?
[6] Ana: There would be where the ferryboat is nowadays, but it is also very close
to the port. . .and there is São Joaquim Market [the biggest outdoor
market of the city].
[7] Lúcia: You did not say any criterion. You want to know our opinion on the best
location, is it?
[8] Teacher: Yes, your opinion, but with some justification.
[9] Ana: I was reading here that the sea depth is a factor, depending on the
technique to use.
[10] Teacher: Great, as well as the distance between the mainland and the island. . .this
is another factor.
[11] Lúcia: So, you want to know the cost. . .I mean the lowest cost?
[12] Renato: Teacher, how do you want indeed? Could you be more explicit?
[13] Teacher: You who will decide.
[14] Lucia: Let us then make a list of what influences the cost.
[15] Renato: It is becoming more difficult.

After that, the teacher left the group. Clearly, the students are struggling to deal with
a realistic and complex situation. They do not understand how to solve the presented
problem. Now I am going to use this episode to clarify my perspective on mathe-
matical modelling in mathematics education and to build a dialogue with the chapter
authors.
6 J. C. Barbosa

Mathematical Modelling

Before discussing the concepts of affect, cognition, and metacognition, I will clarify
my understanding of mathematical modelling because it is going to unfold in the
following discussion. In my view, mathematical modelling is a way to educate in
which students are invited to question and investigate situations originally from daily
life, sciences and/or vocational contexts through mathematics (Barbosa 2006). The
episode above shows this concept in action: the situation comes from daily life. In
fact, the population of the city and region were already discussing the building of the
bridge and its environmental effects on the island. Therefore, the problem was not
originally formulated in the context of school mathematics, but it was moved into
classroom. It was an open problem for the students because there were not given
clues about which mathematical strategies should be used.
The context of school mathematics is evocative because the students easily
recognize that the problem should be solved through school mathematics, though
other arguments are allowed. This understanding of mathematical modelling has
some similarities with the principles of model-eliciting activities developed by
D. Lesh and colleagues, cited by Magiera and Zawojewski (2019), particularly
regarding the reality principle.
The so-called modelling cycles have been used as a theoretical model to describe
the students’ actions, such as in Blum and Leiß (2006). It is well accepted that
modelling involves those sets of actions described by the cycles, but they might not
represent the sequencing developed by students (Barbosa 2006). Czocher (2014)
shows that the cycles of modelling are highly idealized, artificial, and simplified,
suggesting that the mathematical thinking involved is not sequential or quasi-
periodic.
The metacognitive activity itself links all supposed steps of the cycle. When the
students of the aforementioned episode were discussing the criteria to be considered
to decide the location of the bridge, they should have been given an idea about the
solution. The student, Lúcia, said: “Let us then make a list of what influences the
cost” [Turn 14]. This means that the solution must be in terms of the best cost.
Therefore, I would consider the modelling phases pointed out by Vorhölter et al.
(2019) more as actions involved in modelling than sequential steps.
The separation between the mathematical world and the real world might be seen
as problematic. For instance, suppose that the group of students mentioned in the
episode are going to find the distance between any point belonging to the island
border and any point belonging to the Salvador city border. Would they forget they
are dealing with the problem introduced by the teacher that day?
It seems that the line between mathematics and reality leads to the instrumental
perspective on mathematics, as pointed out by Chamberlin (2019). As a conse-
quence, mathematics might be seen as transparent (i.e., mathematics is a neutral
instrument to describe the world itself). This idea has been challenged through the
notion of mathematics in action discussed by Skovsmose (2011), who suggests that
mathematics structures the empirical situations.
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition in Mathematical Modelling 7

In order to make this point clearer, I go to L. Wittgenstein (2001), who says that
the mathematical propositions are normative (i.e., they provide standards, forms, and
modes of conduct to organize our experiences). The mathematical propositions are
never distorted by empirical experience. Look back to the group of students working
on the bridge-building problem. They are invited to organize their experience with
the issue through propositions that already pre-exist in mathematical grammar. The
problem solution can only be produced from the norms provided by mathematics.
Based on this idea, Souza and Barbosa (2014) have pointed out that mathematical
modelling does not describe the reality but regulates it.
Consequently, the fundamental educational task is to invite students to reflect on
the ways mathematics regulates our experience. I have argued that a socio-critical
perspective of mathematical modelling is in action when students engage in
discussing the relationship between the assumptions and their resulting mathemat-
ical models as well as their uses in society (Barbosa 2010). This understanding might
now be extended to include the discussion on how mathematical propositions shape
the modelling process itself and its results.
Since I have clarified my understanding on mathematical modelling, I am going
to discuss students’ doings in mathematical modelling regarding the concepts of
affect, cognition, and metacognition, seeking to build a dialogue with the authors of
the section.

Affect

Chamberlin (2019) provides a rich description of the conceptual field of affect,

giving us an important map for new researches in the area. The author describes
the concept regarding feelings, emotions, and beliefs; this is similar to one of the
definitions discussed in Hannula et al. (2016), which is a synthesis on affect studies
produced as a result of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education.
Both Chamberlin (2019) and Hannula (2014) argue that the key issue is to
understand the relationship between the affective components and the cognitive
processes. In the classroom episode mentioned above, the student, Renato, showed
impatience with a classroom situation based on a realistic problem. His discomfort or
anxiety was explicit when he asked the teacher to give clear direction [Turn 12],
leading to a state of apathy in relation to the resolution of the problem. A possible
interpretation of Renato’s participation pattern in the episode might be understood in
light of his previous experiences in the tradition of school mathematics or his
attitudes towards mathematics built in that tradition.
Warner and Schorr (2019) developed the concept of engagement structure, which
refers to the affective dispositions present within the individual that become active
according to the social circumstances. The authors mention the following structures:
Check this out; I’m really into this; Get the job done; Stay out of trouble; Look how
smart I am; Let me teach you; Do as I say or do as I want; Don’t let the group down.
Warner and Schorr (2019) provide more details about each structure in their chapter.
8 J. C. Barbosa

The empirical example shown by the authors illustrates how those constructs might
be used to identify a shift in students’ forms of participation.
As defined by the authors, the engagement structures belong to an individual’s
internal instance and are activated by social circumstances. However, from a socio-
cultural perspective, the internal level is constituted from interactions with others.
Therefore, the social context should not only be viewed as a kind of activator, but
social settings are also seen as constituting individual dispositions (Lerman 2001).
As a consequence, I would tend to re-interpret the engagement structures as forms of
participation established in social contexts that were internalised by students as long
as they have been taking part in pedagogical practices.
Chamberlin (2019) sees the relations between affect, modelling, and cognition as
reciprocal. The author presents and discusses a scheme in which the three compo-
nents are interconnected, challenging the idea of affect as the primary cause. From
this point of view, Renato’s impatience and apathy might be challenged in the
practice of modelling since there is no cause-effect relationship between affect and
cognition, but they are brought together.
Also, Chamberlin (2019) sees affect, cognition, and mathematical modelling as
processes, which, to my view, lead us to think of them as situated. As I suggested
earlier, mathematical modelling is part of a pedagogical practice that we call school
mathematics, and as such it provides what is more or less legitimate (or even not
legitimate). The sociology of B. Bernstein (2000) talks about the concept of peda-
gogical practice as a code that regulates legitimate communication and establishes
rules for acceptable meanings. Therefore, mathematical modelling seems to go
beyond a process; it is a way of organizing the pedagogical practice, establishing
rules for action in school mathematics.
Referring back to the example in section 2 and considering the way the mathe-
matical modelling environment was organized, someone might identify some rules:
students are allowed to talk about a situation from daily life, control over students’
communication is weakened, and the students are required to make assumptions.
The students (e.g., Renato) may not follow the rules, or they might struggle to
address the rules, as Ana and Lúcia seem to do. This means that the practice of
mathematical modelling provides positions, and those who participate in it react in
different ways. These reactions might be seen as dispositions, attitudes, feelings, and
so on. Therefore, it seems to be impossible to say that affective and cognitive
processes are forms of dealing with social contexts, but I rather see them as shaped
in contexts.
When Renato asked for the teacher’s guidelines [Turn 12], perhaps he was acting
similarly to other situations in school mathematics. His question would not be
unusual in a context in which following examples provided by the teacher is the
main rule. This illustrates what L. Wittgenstein (2001) called family resemblance.
Renato acted by similarity. It leads us not to think of affective dispositions as internal
structures that germinate in fertile conditions. On the contrary, they are shaped in
social life; in such a way, I would emphasize the perspective that considers that
feelings, emotions, beliefs, and dispositions are built and rebuilt in social practices.
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition in Mathematical Modelling 9

Cognition

The concept of cognition is highly disputed in psychology, education, and mathe-

matics education. Different foundational assumptions introduce different perspec-
tives. For example, von Glaserfeld (2005) relates the concept to the process
undertaken by the individual to organize their experiences; Lerman (2001), based
on L. Vygotsky’s theory, sees cognition development as a result of internalization of
social interactions; and Sfard (2007), based on the late philosophy of L. Wittgenstein
(2001), sees cognition as communication. These three theoretical perspectives also
suggest there are many ways of conceptualizing cognition in mathematical
modelling.
Chamberlin (2019) proposes to consider the categories of affect and cognition as
inseparable. As I mentioned before, this challenges the idea of affect as a causal
factor to cognitive processes, which seems to be a more dynamic way to describe
students’ psychological processes. Earlier I argued seeing the affect being shaped in
the positions made available by the pedagogical practice. Similarly, I am also going
to understand cognition as shaped by rules of the pedagogical practice.
From a sociocultural perspective, the students in the classroom episode discussed
the best location to build a bridge between the city of Salvador and Itaparica Island.
Over the years, they had been developed ways of thinking and speaking during the
process of socializing in their (school) lives. To be more precise, according to
Bernstein (2000), they learned legitimate forms of participation by taking part in
social activities in school. However, social rules might change, as demonstrated in
the episode above during which developing mathematical modelling introduced new
rules. It implies a rearrangement of the legitimate ways of thinking and talking. In the
classroom episode, some of the statements made by the students (e.g., asking the
teacher for direction), can be interpreted in terms of following a traditional rule of
school mathematics.
The classroom episode shows that there is tension between different rules of
communication between the colleagues and the teacher. Whereas students seem to
ask for some direction, the teacher suggests they should make decisions. This
suggests a broader idea of cognition that goes beyond the individual being. Magiera
and Zawojewski (2019) suggest seeing individual cognition in terms of others’
regulation. In fact, regulating is an activity developed by all involved in pedagogical
practices. It leads to the point made by Bernstein (2000): pedagogical practices
address rules that set up the limits of legitimate communication.
This understanding is in line with the perspective of thinking as situated in the
social context. Also, we can go ahead and accept the formulation proposed by Sfard
(2007) and Harré (2009): cognition itself is a communicative process. What we think
is always related to a ruled social context. The only difference is in terms of
communicating to yourself or to others. This understanding could lead us to review
the construct of students’ modelling routes originally introduced by Borromeo Ferri
(2006). The author states the concept of student’ modelling route as “the individual
modelling process on an internal and external level” (p. 91). In light of seeing
10 J. C. Barbosa

thinking as communicating, the internal level in modelling routes is not something

beyond communication itself. Another import aspect is to consider modelling routes
as relational to pedagogical contexts. Students’ strategies are not inseparable from
the evocative contexts that address their rules; as a result, there is no separation
between the students’ actions and the context.

Metacognition

The concept of metacognition, generally speaking, refers to thinking about thinking

and/or the monitoring of thinking. The subject has been part of the mathematics
education agenda, particularly focusing on specific mathematical activities such as
problem-solving (Schoenfeld 1992). Surely this tradition prompted us to research
students’ metacognition when they are involved in producing mathematical models.
Magiera and Zawojewski (2019) and Vorhölter et al. (2019) have drawn a detailed
map on how the discussion has been developing in the field of mathematical
modelling.
The understandings presented in the chapters reflect the concept of metacognition
by Flavell (1979), who highlights the role of monitoring and regulation on thinking.
At this point, returning to the classroom episode mentioned earlier is useful. Con-
sider the point in which the student, Lúcia, says that the problem question is to find
the shortest distance between the island and the mainland. At that moment, would
the student be only thinking about making the question clear? Would she be
projecting the type of answer? Would she be starting to plan a strategy to approach
the problem? Even though she did not anticipate a clear modelling route, Lúcia’s
conversation is not isolated from the steps the student group is going to take. I am
posing these questions to support the theoretical results presented by Vorhölter et al.
(2019) about the difficulty of separating cognition and metacognition.
I suggest that monitoring thinking and talking is always present in pedagogical
practices. In the classroom episode, students do not forget that they are in a
mathematics class in a school which has its own rules for legitimate communication.
Bernstein (2000) introduced the notions of rules of recognition and rules of realiza-
tion for respectively naming the regulation on what to say and how to say it in
pedagogical contexts. Another construct developed by Bernstein (2000) was the
rules of evaluation, which refers to the criteria for judging the legitimacy of the
statements in pedagogical practice. We might analyse if the rules have stronger or
weaker values, but they are operating in contexts.
Magiera and Zawojewski’s (2019) chapter presents a sociocultural perspective on
the concept of metacognition. Citing L. Vygotsky, the authors see metacognition as a
process of internalization from the symbolic interactions in social contexts. Taking
this into consideration, I would underline the inseparability among thought, meta-
cognition, and pedagogical context (and its rules), which unfolds in the way people
interact. Magiera and Zawojewski (2019) state that co-regulation or other-regulation
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition in Mathematical Modelling 11

takes place in solving problems collaboratively. The social organization of the

classroom seems inviting for students to make forms of monitoring more visible.
As a result, the educational task is that co-regulation and other-regulation should
be visible parts of the pedagogical organization; in this case, the mathematical
modelling. Magiera and Zawojewski (2019) present three principles to optimize
the observation of metacognitive activity in modelling practices in school: organi-
zation of students for collaborative work, complex problems that require discussion,
and working in groups. These characteristics for modelling practices seem to be
useful for research purposes. However, they can also be seen as a way to give
visibility to metacognitive activities in any mathematical modelling-based class.
Metacognitive activities in modelling activities can refer to different scopes. For
instance, from the socio-critical perspective (Barbosa 2010), one of the aims is to
discuss how different assumptions made for the situation and mathematical descrip-
tions generate different models and their possible uses in society. This refers to what
I previously called reflective discussions (Barbosa 2010). For example, suppose that
the student groups working on the bridge problem made different assumptions: one
group considered the shortest distance between the mainland and the island; a second
group assumed that the bridge should be built in the stretch of lesser depth; and,
finally, a third group assumed that the starting point of the bridge in the city of
Salvador should be a region of low economic development. Many of the arguments
regarding the mathematical models and the answers differ, which could lead to a
discussion about the close relationship between assumptions, the normative role of
mathematics, and mathematical models and their uses in the societal debate. Perhaps
these questions would not be valued in other approaches more focused on develop-
ing modelling competences or learning new mathematical contents.
I therefore suggest that monitoring how to think and how to speak in the practice
of mathematical modelling depends on the perspective in action. We can identify
different purposes for the use of mathematical modelling in school (Kaiser and
Sriraman 2006), which will put into operation different sets of rules. In this way,
the students’ metacognitive activities cannot be seen as separated from the rules of
the pedagogical practice in which modelling occurs.

Final Remarks

The discussion about mathematical modelling in mathematics education in the light

of the concepts of affect, cognition, and metacognition is fertile, as suggested by the
theoretical and empirical results presented by the authors of the section one of the
book Affect in Mathematical Modelling. The chapters are clear about their theoretical
foundations, making them useful resources for the debate even if someone draws on
different views.
As noted at the beginning of the commentary, I have been working with social
theories. In my task of discussing the chapters, I tried to challenge the conceptual-
ization of affect, cognition, and metacognition in mathematical modelling in light of
12 J. C. Barbosa

the social dimension. Instead of seeing the social context as a place to express affect,
cognition, and metacognition, my main theoretical point is to see these psycholog-
ical processes as inseparable from the context in which they occur. This does not
imply that the rules of the pedagogical context determine how mathematical model-
ling and students’ psychological processes take place, but we can certainly say that
contextual rules set limits on what students can think and speak. Furthermore, this
does not mean that students, teachers, and other actors cannot challenge the rules
altering their values.
In addition, one question remains that needs further elaboration: How should the
concepts of affect and metacognition be conceptualized if we assume there is no
separation between internal and external instances? This understanding comes from
the late writings of L. Wittgenstein (2011) and inspired Sfard’s (2007)
commognitive approach. Harré (2009) says this Wittgensteinian view leads us to
the second cognitive revolution, which is more radical than the first since it is
abolishing the border between internal and external. This is an issue that the areas
of mathematics education and mathematical modelling should put in their agendas.

References

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention,
reflection, critique. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Barbosa, J. C. (2010). The students’ discussions in the modeling environment. In R. Lesh, P. L.
Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling
competencies (pp. 365–372). New York: Springer.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev
ed.). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2006). “Filling up” – The problem of independence-preserving teacher
interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In Bosch, M. (Ed.), CERME-4 –
Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European Society for Research in mathematics
education, Guixol.
Bochichhio, R. (2017, July 10). Ponte Salvador-Itaparica: edital sai em outubro. A Tarde. Retrieved
from: http://atarde.uol.com.br/
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. ZDM, 38(2), 86–95.
Chamberlin, S. A. (2019). The construct of affect in mathematical modelling. In [to be completed].
Czocher, J. A. (2014). Towards building a theory of mathematical modelling. In P. Liljedahl,
C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME38 and
PME-NA36 (Vol. 2, pp. 353–360). Vancouver: PME.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Glasersfeld, E. (2005). Thirty years of radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1),
9–12.
Hannula, M. S. (2014). Affect in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hannula, M. S., Di Martino, P., Pantziara, M., Zhang, Q., Morselli, F., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E.,
Lutovac, S., Kaasila, R., Middleton, J. A., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2016). Attitudes, beliefs,
Commentary on Affect, Cognition and Metacognition in Mathematical Modelling 13

motivation and identity in mathematics education: An overview of the field and future directions
(ICME-13 Topical Surveys). Hamburg: SpringerOpen.
Harré, R. (2009). The second cognitive revolution. In K. Leidlmair (Ed.), After cognitivism: A
reassessment of cognitive science and philosophy (pp. 181–187). New York: Springer.
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in
mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310.
Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the
teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 87–113.
Lerman, S. (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Is plurality a problem? In B. Sriraman &
L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 99–109).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2019). Designing research settings for the study of
metacognitive activity: A case for small group mathematical modeling. In [to be completed].
Oliveira, A. M. P., & Barbosa, J. C. (2013). Mathematical modelling, mathematical content and
tensions in discourses. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching
mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 67–76). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning. A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stilman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling: a survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM Mathematics Education.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0933-5.
Sfard, A. (2007). Commognition: Thinking as communicating, the case of mathematics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Souza, E. G., & Barbosa, J. C. (2014). Some implications of Wittgenstein’s idea of use for learning
mathematics through mathematical modelling. International Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 4, 114–138.
Vorhölter, K., Krüger, A., & Wendt, L. (2019). Metacognition in mathematical modeling – An
overview. In [to be completed].
Warner, L. B., & Schorr, R. Y. (2019). Exploring the connection between engagement structures
and the development of mathematical ideas. In [to be completed].
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect
in Mathematical Modeling

Scott A. Chamberlin

Abstract In this chapter, affect, mathematical modeling, and to a lesser degree

cognition, are discussed in an attempt to provide readers with a fundamental
understanding for the remainder of the book. Affect is described as a multifaceted
construct that relates to beliefs, attitudes, and emotions (McLeod and Adams 1989).
DeBellis and Goldin (2006) refer to meta-affect, which is affect about affect, though
they later added the tetrahedral model, which included values. Affect, once consid-
ered a subset of cognition (Binet and Simon 1916) may now be considered a
co-equal constituent with cognition. Mathematical modeling is considered a process
or act, in which problem solvers seek to generate understanding of mathematical
information through mathematizing in an iterative process. In this chapter, a model is
provided in which the relationship between affect, cognition, and mathematical
modeling is elucidated.

Keywords Affect · Cognition · Mathematical modeling · Mathematical problem

solving

The focus of this chapter is on explicating the relationship between affect in mathematics
and mathematical modeling. The chapter is broken into three sections, with a priority on
seminal research in the fields of (1) affect in mathematics, (2) mathematical modeling, and
(3) their relationship. At the conclusion of the literature review, a model (found in Fig. 1)
regarding the relationship between affect, modeling, and cognition is presented. This model
is a theoretical one and some assumptions are made for its creation. The model was created
based on empirical literature, but not per se on empirical data collected specifically to
substantiate the model.
The general field of affect is much older than many realize, dating to at least the
mid-1700s (Smith 1759). Mathematical modeling gained notoriety circa the late
1800s with the work of Hertz (1894). Each field grew precipitously in the late 1960s

S. A. Chamberlin (*)
School of Teacher Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA
e-mail: scott@uwyo.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 15

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_2
16 S. A. Chamberlin

and early 1970s, as scholarly activity centered on the two foci and they thus became
a concentration in the burgeoning field of mathematics education. Prior to the
introduction of the discussion, it is critical to note three points. First, with respect
to each focus (i.e., affect and mathematical modeling), each existed long before they
were formally conceptualized in literature and the dates mentioned are the earliest
known dates of well-recognized publications. Second, given the rather lengthy
ascension of literature of affect in mathematics, the Smith publication may not
formally be considered an area of mathematics education today. Instead, the Smith
publication dealt formally with how people make moral judgments in the area of
economics. Nevertheless, the publication is often credited with providing early
theory about affective subconstructs such as interest, value, and emotions. Third,
several notes about semantics may help readers interpret this chapter and the larger
book. Affect is considered a noun and it relates to feelings, emotions, dispositions,
and beliefs, in this case relative to mathematics (Anderson and Bourke 2000;
McLeod 1994; McLeod and Adams 1989; Middleton and Spanias 1999). Mathe-
matical modeling is considered an act or process and is therefore a verb. From the
process of modeling, ideally mathematical models are created (Lesh and Zawojewski
2007) as modeling maintains a close relationship with mathematical problem solv-
ing. Cognition in the context of this model is generally considered a process (verb),
though at times it could be considered a noun as well.

History of Affect

It has become commonplace for educational researchers to establish their name

among peers by identifying pre-existing concepts and constructs and coining new
terms to describe them as Coleman (2006) suggested. Some individuals are sadly not
aware that such psychological phenomena (e.g., affect) existed and had been for-
malized centuries ago.
Affect was officially conceptualized nearly 200 years ago by Pinel. In the early
1800s, Pinel referred to, ‘Intellectual and affective factors’, as Binet and Simon did
(1916), in relation to learning. This (affect) may be the construct that Binet discussed
in 1916 when he referred to ‘intellectual manifestations’ as Pinel was regarded as
one of Binet’s contemporaries. Almost simultaneously in 1829, Mill (1878) defined
many components of the mind that were not identified as cognition per se, such as
feelings, beliefs, anxiety, and attitude. One-hundred years later, Thurstone and
Chave (1929) finalized a seminal book on attitudes, thus bringing attention to it
among behavioral psychologists. Nevertheless, such non-cognitive constructs, as
Messick (1979) referred to them, were not given much attention in mathematical
psychology until the late 1960s. As an aside, Pinel, being a physician (formally
trained as a psychiatrist) by trade, did have a high interest in mathematics, was a
mathematics teacher, and therefore did matriculate many upper level mathematics
courses (Pinel n.d.).
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 17

Around the time of Binet and Simon (1916), Valentiner (1930) coined the term
non-intellectual factors in relation to intelligence. More recently, the Educational
Testing Service did refer to non-intellectual factors as early as 1951, regarding
general intellect and not mathematics specifically. Throughout all of this theoretical
writing, the construct of affect was difficult to disentangle from how individuals
think. This is because much of the international emphasis in the early twentieth
century pertained to the rather misunderstood construct called cognition (Jastrow
1901; Maher 1900). The sentiment among experts in the early twentieth century was
that feelings, emotions, attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs were impossible to dis-
entangle from the process of thought (cognition). They were thus considered some-
what distinct constructs, but affect may have been considered a subset of cognition.
This rather ill-defined understanding of affect’s relation to cognition may not have
helped (mathematical) psychologists make sense of the construct.
Specific to mathematics, Feierabend (1960) may be credited with creating foci
that led to subsequent research on affect in mathematics. Among her contributions
were questions that provided direction regarding what areas to research in mathe-
matics. In her article, she urged researchers to investigate:
• If there was a prevailing negative attitude toward arithmetic and mathematics
(p. 19)
• What the relationship was between motivation and achievement (p. 19)
• What the factors are underlying attitudes towards mathematics (p. 20)
Within the decade, the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG) convened the
National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities (Higgins 1970; Romberg and
Wilson 1969) to investigate such matters. The NLSMA may be considered the most
comprehensive work of its era and provided significant direction for the nascent field
of mathematical psychology. Specifically, NLSMA reports 4–7, 20, and 33 pertain
to student affective factors as they were measured and as they relate to achievement.
In this sense, the formal construct-domains of affect and mathematics had officially
been conceived by the late 1960s and from there, the volume of literature grew
almost exponentially with much of the work coming immediately after the NLSMA
efforts.
Hence, the work by the SMSG was instrumental in promulgating additional
research in the field of affect in mathematics (Chamberlin 2010). Many studies
proceeded the work of the SMSG, including a vast array of studies in which
researchers investigated anxiety (Richardson and Suinn 1972; Suinn 1970) and
attitude in mathematics (Aiken 1972, 1974). Fennema and Sherman’s work (1976)
is often cited as seminal in the area of affect in mathematics because they assessed
multiple subconstructs of affect with a single instrument. Prior to this date, instru-
ments were typically created to assess one subcomponent of affect (Chamberlin).
The Fennema-Sherman instrument was later revised by Lim and Chapman (2012).
As additional research efforts were invested in investigating affect in mathematics,
the field questioned what, precisely, constituted affect. The answer to this question
may reside in a publication outside of the domain of mathematics. By 1982, then
updated in the year 2000 with a second edition, Anderson and Bourke had clarified
18 S. A. Chamberlin

what affect was, at least in general educational settings, with their work entitled,
Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. In being able to advertise that they
could accurately assess affective characteristics in schools, they were tasked with
conceptually establishing several foundational understandings such as (1) identifying
effective approaches to assessing psychological constructs, including instrumenta-
tion, (2) providing a rationale for why affect should be assessed in schools,
(3) ascertaining the specific subconstructs that constitute affect. It is the third piece
of these foundational understandings that likely provided great direction to the
domain of mathematical psychology. According to Anderson and Bourke, two tenets
are critical. First, affect is synonymous with motivation. Second, affect is comprised
of the following eight subconstructs: anxiety, aspiration, attitude, interest, locus of
control, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and value. In the next section, additional concep-
tions of what affect in mathematics is will be presented.
Similarly, in 1982, Hoyles sought empirical data to clarify whether hypotheses
about negative affect in mathematics were apparent. According to Hoyles, high
school students hold very emotional, predominately negative, responses to mathe-
matics. In subsequent years, multiple researchers helped quantify students’ value of
mathematics through monitoring and investigating course matriculation (e.g., Betz
and Hackett 1983; Reyes 1984).
Subsequently, an important step in the discussion of affect transpired in the late
1990s/early 2000s. During this time, the field realized a change from a normative to
an interpretive perspective on the discussion of affect, regarding the approach to
measurement and individual impact on mathematical problem solvers. In so doing,
the focus in affect transferred from a process of explaining it to one of interpreting
student affect. Practically speaking, this meant that researchers focused their efforts
on understanding why individuals’ affective states were as they were through
interpretation, rather than using general (or normative) guidelines to causally explain
affective states (Hannula et al. 2004).

Multiple Conceptions of Affect in Mathematics

A recurring issue with the psychological construct of affect is that it seems the longer
experts discuss what, precisely it is, the more convoluted the conception of it
becomes. Nevertheless, some clarification exists in theoretical writings by experts
in mathematics education.
Of particular note, are early writings by McLeod and colleagues (1989, 1992,
1994). In 1989, McLeod and Adams published a formative book that helped provide
a foundation for researchers in mathematics education. The book, entitled Affect and
mathematical problem solving, had a very similar focus and title to this book, Affect
in mathematical modeling. Prior to this publication, the construct of affect in relation
to mathematics was somewhat amorphous. That is to say, several of the aforemen-
tioned researchers had conducted investigations on various concepts of affect, but it
may not have been formalized in one central publication quite as well as it was in the
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 19

McLeod and Adams’ book. Hannula et al. (2004) referred to it as a ‘pioneer book’
(p. 132). Foci in the book included, the role of affect in problem solving, the
conception of what constituted affect in mathematics, affect and learning, and affect
and metacognition, to name a few. Subsequently, McLeod contributed to the Inter-
national handbook of research on mathematics education, edited by Grouws in
1992. In this chapter, he again relied heavily on Mandler’s 1984 general publication
about affect and emotions in the world of psychology, not the domain of mathemat-
ics per se. Throughout all of his work, he was steadfast in interpreting research in the
general field of psychology and personalizing it to mathematics (education). In this
1992 publication, McLeod was famous for attributing actual constructs of affect to
mathematics education including beliefs, attitudes, and emotions. Many scholars
today, some 25 years later, still refer to affect in mathematics as comprised of beliefs,
attitudes, and emotions, though some scholars reference a more comprehensive
spectrum of affective components than the ones McLeod did. In addition, McLeod
discussed the relationship between affect and cognition. These efforts may have
been instrumental in helping affect become prominent among mathematics educa-
tors as its own field of inquiry, rather than being considered a subset of cognition, as
has been postulated. In so doing, McLeod provided badly needed structure to affect
and facilitated understanding among researchers for future work. In 1994, McLeod
provided another major contribution to JRME in which he reviewed research on
affect in mathematics from 1970 to 1994. This publication was instrumental in
several respects. First, it identified the informal start date of research on affect in
mathematics, circa 1970. Second, it provided a thorough overview of literature that
researchers could utilize for several years. In essence, the publication afforded
neophyte scholars the opportunity to access most research contributions relevant to
affect and mathematics in one spot. A prospective shortcoming of the publication
was that the research discussed was only that contained within JRME to date, not
publications in other outlets.
In the late 1990s, Ma published two meta-analyses on affect and mathematics
achievement. These publications were instrumental in providing lucidity in
interpreting the importance of affect, relative to achievement in mathematics. The
first study was published in 1997 and in it Ma and Kishor explicated the effect of
attitude in relation to achievement. After limiting studies to 107, an effect size of .12
was realized. Individual categories were also analyzed and they were gender, grade,
ethnicity, sample selection, sample size, and date of publication with very similar
results (minimally significant if at all). This study put to rest the notion that attitude
can influence mathematics achievement. Though the finding(s) was/were statistically
significant, the practical significance of attitude could be debated. Moreover, the
results may have been negatively influenced by a shortsighted view of what consti-
tuted attitude since all of the studies preceded 1997. Subsequently (1999), Ma
conducted a similar investigation on anxiety in relation to mathematics achievement.
In this meta-analysis, Ma utilized 26 studies and found a correlation of .27 between
anxiety and achievement. Though a negative relationship, as expected between
anxiety and achievement, the .27 effect size was stronger than the rather modest
.12. Practically speaking, anxiety correlates negatively, though nominally so, with
20 S. A. Chamberlin

achievement. In short, this means that low anxiety is better than high anxiety for high
achievement and conversely high anxiety often correlates with low achievement.
The results of the studies were certainly of importance to the field of mathematics
education. Nearly as important was the collection of the corpus of literature in one
study. Incidentally, as with the 1997 study, Ma investigated the relationship of
anxiety and achievement in mathematics using several demographic variables,
including gender, grade, and ethnicity and found each to be of no significant
interaction with achievement in mathematics. It is important to note that Ma’s studies
were correlational and therefore causation cannot be assumed.
Within the decade, Middleton and Spanias provided another lens on affect in
mathematics as they reviewed motivation and its effect on teaching and learning in
mathematics. This publication was considered by many to be the most comprehen-
sive discussion of motivation in mathematics at that time. Though not perhaps an
original intent, the Middleton and Spanias publication brought to the fore the
question of, “What precisely is the relationship between affect and motivation?”
Within the year, Anderson and Bourke (2000), stated that motivation is the sum total
of affect, though this statement came from the general field of educational psychol-
ogy, and not specifically mathematical psychology.
Malmivuori’s (2001) dissertation promulgated an emerging career in which she inves-
tigated affect in relation to such constructs as self-regulation (2006). McLeod later called
Malmivuori’s dissertation far superior to his 1992 chapter in the Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Education (Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education n.d.).
This comment was rendered likely for two reasons. First, her dissertation is considered by
many to be widely influential and a model for high quality works. Second, when
Malmivuori completed her dissertation, she had access to an additional 10 years of
publications (both empirical and theoretical) on which to base her claims. Still, her analysis
of literature prior to her dissertation was conducted at a very deep level, hence, McLeod’s
comments on the high quality of her dissertation.
The following year, 2002, Leder, Pehkonen, and Törner edited a book in which a
comprehensive overview of affect was provided. They termed beliefs, what McLeod
referred to as but one of three legs of affect, a ‘hidden variable’ in mathematics
education. Various discussions were provided by researchers in this book relevant to
topics such as a conceptualization of what beliefs are in mathematics, teacher beliefs
and their relation to learning, student beliefs and their relation to learning, and beliefs
in relation to other components of affect. Of great importance to this book was
Goldin’s discussion of beliefs in relation to affect and meta-affect. In so discussing
meta-affect, he referred to it as ‘affect about affect’ or a cognizance of emotions,
beliefs, and attitudes. Interestingly, Goldin stated that affect is often downplayed in
significance in mathematics because society believes it to be a purely intellectual
endeavor and therefore fully devoid of an emotional component. The Goldin con-
tribution was a theory developed from over a decade of work with colleague Valerie
DeBellis (1991, 1993, 1997, 1999). Also of note is their tetrahedral model (Debellis
and Goldin 2006) in which it is suggested that affect is comprised of four separate,
but intricately intertwined categories. The category that DeBellis and Goldin added
was values, which subsumed ethics, and morals, and were in addition to McLeod’s
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 21

pre-existing three categories of affect, which are emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. The
tetrahedral model provided a new perspective on affect as comprised of four
components, rather than the previously agreed upon three.
More recently, the 2009 publication by Maaß and Schlöglmann contains empir-
ical results relevant to affect in mathematics. This book had an emphasis on teachers
and their practical effect on classroom learning. As an example, Liljedahl’s chapter
on teacher insights about the relationship between beliefs and practice and Sivunen
and Pehkonen’s chapter on elementary teachers’ conceptions on problem solving are
particularly salient in understanding the importance of beliefs and attitudes in
mathematics.

The Conception of Modeling in Mathematics

Modeling may be considered the process of creating mathematical models to explain

and understand phenomena and concepts outside of mathematics in mathematical
terms. Quarteroni calls mathematical modeling, “The third pillar of science and
engineering, achieving the fulfillment of the two more traditional disciplines, theo-
retical and experimental.” (2009, p. 10). To generate mathematical models, the
process of modeling must be engaged. The purpose of creating mathematical models
is varied. As Lawson and Marion (2008) suggest, mathematical modeling may be
used to create understanding of science (and mathematics), assess effects of change
in systems, and facilitate decision-making. Lesh and colleagues (2000) stated that
problem solvers create mathematical models to, “. . .reveal how they are interpreting
mathematical situations that they encounter by disclosing how these situations are
being mathematized (e.g., quantified, organized, coordinatized, dimensionalized) or
interpreted (p. 593). Several points from this conception are important to note.
Specifically, endemic to mathematical modeling are the processes of interpreting
and mathematizing. First, to create mathematical models, some degree of interpre-
tation must occur. That is to say, to create successfully a mathematical model,
problem solvers must analyze some mathematical information (e.g., data), interpret
the information, and then create a mathematical model to make sense of the
information. Second, the process of mathematizing is instrumental. Mathematizing
occurs when problem solvers analyze everyday information that may not ostensibly
be mathematical and they make it mathematical (Presmeg 2003; Van Den Heuvel-
Panhuizen 2003). Treffers (1987) substantiates this point when he referred to
mathematizing as, “Transferring a problem field into a mathematical problem”
(p. 247). An example of mathematizing information to create a mathematical
model may be defining and then quantifying factors. For instance, when most people
go to a grocery store or market, an objective is to collect all desired products and then
pay in as expeditious manner as possible. Though many people do not view this
episode as an opportunistic one to create a mathematical model, listed below is a
sample of factors that may lead to success in exiting the grocery store as quickly as
possible. For instance:
22 S. A. Chamberlin

1. cashier speed in scanning items and bagging them,

2. amount of customer produce in basket as produce may require a special code that
needs to be entered into the register manually while products with a Universal
Product Code (UPC) are quickly scanned for information,
3. consumer form of payment (e.g., electronic forms of payment are nearly always
quicker than checks or cash),
4. total number of items in the basket/cart,
5. speed of consumer in delivering items to the cashier
It is important to reiterate that mathematical models may be used to understand
mathematical situations and there are myriad situations in which a model could be
created, but the general public may not realize a need for one. As an example, some
may find it meaningless to create a mathematical model to quantify efficiency in
shopping, but business experts may not see this example as trivial as (their) future
success may depend on such models. Moreover, the need for the mathematical
model may be of primary importance to certain constituencies, while not necessarily
noticed by other parties, to which the model will perhaps not be utilized.
Embedded in this example of creating a mathematical model is the process of
interpreting information in the form of (1) identifying relevant factors that may affect
speed in the cashier line, (2) mathematizing the factors through a process such as
weighing the variables, (3) creating a mathematical model that is generalizable to as
many shopping situations as possible, and (4) testing the model for efficiency. Two
points are worth expanding here. That is, mathematizing occurs when problem
solvers analyze information that has not been made mathematical and make it
mathematical. It thus is easily considered in creating the final mathematical model.
Second, generalizability in creating mathematical models is instrumental in
assessing the value of the mathematical model. That is to say, if a model has greatly
limited generalizability, then it has little applicability, with the exception of the
current use of it. The best models, therefore, are often the most easily interpreted and
the most generalizable to other contexts and domains.
In addition, another process inherent in mathematical modeling is the creation of
multiple iterations (Chamberlin 2008; Lawson and Marion 2008) of models in an
attempt to create a highly refined mathematical model. This is the case because the
first model that is created to respond to a situation is not always the most sophisti-
cated one. The world of engineering and the design process embedded in it is
perhaps most representative of this concept. As an example, the first cell phone
did not resemble current cell phones at all. Initial prototypes of what is now known
as a cell phone were far heavier, slower, and more cumbersome than today’s phones.
Moreover, given few cell phone towers and an inability to pick up a signal in many
cases, calls were often dropped or never even initiated. Today’s cell phones, several
iterations after the first version in 1983 are lighter (Art Institute 2017), have far better
reception, can connect to the internet wirelessly, and can execute hundreds of
functions (often simultaneously) in relation to early prototypes.
Similarly, the creation of mathematical models, whether created by a grade two
student or a graduate student in mechanical engineering, require a process of creating
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 23

a prototype (or first iteration) and then undergoing the creation of three to four
additional models before the model can be considered a highly sophisticated one.
Refinements, it may be postulated, are critical to highly efficient mathematical
models, but are often quicker and easier alterations to the initial prototype. Through-
out the creation of models, the influence of beliefs, attitudes, and emotions cannot be
overstated.

Affect in Mathematical Modeling

Thus far, a foundation in relation to extant literature has been provided regarding
what the construct of affect is, what affect in mathematics is, and what mathematical
modeling is. In this section, the three foci are combined to formulate one theory,
presented in Fig. 1. In this section, the description of this theory is elucidated so that
readers will have a basis on which to interpret discussion in the remaining chapters.
The caveat with the theory provided is that it is simply that, theory. Theories, by
definition, are unproven suppositions based roughly on previous evidence. In this
case, the evidence is the empirical studies so explicated in literature.
In Fig. 1, affect and mathematical modeling are larger circles because they
represent the focus of this book. Cognition is a central component that links the
two constructs in the field of mathematical psychology. It is important to note that
the effect of each component is postulated to be a bi-directional relationship. That is
to say, at any given time, and it may be theorized that these loops are perpetual. As
importantly, affect influences (and the term affect as a verb is purposefully avoided
in this chapter in lieu of influence) cognition, while cognition influences affect.
Similarly, cognition influences modeling in mathematics, while the process of
modeling (creating models as it was described earlier) influences the process of
cognition. Finally, modeling influences affect, and vice versa, though it is significant
to notice that the feedback loop that represents the interaction between modeling and
affect influences cognition as well. To reiterate, all influences are predicated on
feedback, which may come consciously or subconsciously. In the remaining

Cognition

Affect Modelling

Fig. 1 Theory of affect in mathematical modeling

24 S. A. Chamberlin

sections, individual relationships will be explained, supplemented liberally with

examples to support the theory.
The Interrelationship of Affect and Cognition. As discussed, the relationship
between affect and cognition is challenging to distinguish because the two are so
intricately intertwined (Goldin 2017; Tuohilampi 2017). The two constructs are very
much symbiotic in the respect that cognition directly influences and needs affect, but
simultaneously, affect does not exist without cognition. In fact, early theorists and
researchers in the field of educational psychology rarely mentioned affect without
mention of cognition (Binet and Simon 1916; Bloom 1956). Affect certainly influ-
ences cognition in that one’s feelings, emotions, dispositions, attitude, and beliefs
play an integral role in how one thinks. As an example, consider a problem solver
that is engaged in a mathematical problem-solving task. Solving the problem
naturally requires cognition. If the problem solver was involved in a tragic incident,
such as a car accident the previous night, the influence of the incident most assuredly
weighs on one’s ability to engage in cognition, without considerable distractions.
Interestingly, a common misconception may be that only negative affect can serve as
a distraction. However, inordinately positive affect can similarly serve as a distrac-
tion. If, for instance, an individual solving a mathematics problem had just won
millions of dollars in a lottery, distraction or disengagement may also exist. When
affective states detract from one’s ability to engage and concentrate, affect nega-
tively influences cognition.
Cognition also influences affect in that the degree of success that one is having
and the level of engagement can often directly influence how effectively one is
involved in cognition. The mechanism that apprises problem solvers of their pro-
gress, or lack thereof, is self-regulation. In some instances, individuals will receive
feedback that adequate success is not being reached and thus be increasingly
motivated, through persistence, to solve the problem. In any event, be it positive
or negative feedback, cognition influences affect and affect directly influences
cognition.
The Relationship Between Cognition and Modeling. Similarly, the relationship
between cognition and modeling is bi-directional and perpetual. That is to say, active
engagement in thinking (cognition) is directly influenced by the modeling process.
In fact, at times cognition and modeling are almost indistinguishable because the
very notion of success in creating the first mathematical model for a problem and
then refining it through the creation of subsequent iterations is contingent upon
success in thinking. As an aside, one’s ability to mitigate the effect of interference
when thinking (De Visscher and Noël 2014) can facilitate success in cognition, and
ultimately success in mathematical model creation. This example speaks of the
significance of thinking relative to mathematical modeling. However, it can be
postulated that there is an influence of mathematical modeling on cognition. This
is the case because the very demands of the individual problem may relate to the
quality, level, and depth of cognition. It may be cliché to refer to background
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 25

knowledge when considering cognition. However, it is most challenging to create a

mathematical model without information that problem solvers have previously
learned subconsciously entering into the formulation of the model. Though not
formally studied, it can thus simply be hypothesized that if two groups of problem
solvers each completed a modeling problem, one group with extensive background
knowledge on a topic and the other group without such background knowledge, the
first group may likely produce the more comprehensive model of the two groups.
The exception to this rule may happen when the group with the more extensive
background knowledge tries to over-formalize the model with pre-existing algo-
rithms or formulae that are not relevant to the problem.
The Relationship Between Affect and Modeling (and Cognition). Given the close
relationship between cognition and modeling, and considering the proposed model
(Fig. 1), affect influences modeling and modeling influences affect. One’s feelings,
emotions, and dispositions could influence the type of model created. This is the case
given the nature of creating multiple iterations to identify the most refined model.
The subconstruct called persistence, not necessarily agreed upon by mathematical
psychologists as a subconstruct of affect, is requisite for problem solvers to find
success in identifying the most refined model. Persistence arguably has connections
to value, interest, and locus of control. In fact, many theoretical mathematicians
work on one problem for as long as a decade (personal communication with Zhuang
Niu on 6 May, 2017).
In viewing the relationship of modeling to affect, it also exists and suggests a
bi-directional relationship in the two components. It may be safe to assume that
mathematical modeling influences affect given the success one, or a group of
problem solvers, attains in approximating an acceptable or highly refined product.
As an example, if a group of problem solvers has worked on the creation of a
mathematical model for a lengthy time, relative to the time estimated to identify a
comprehensive model, the group may feel that identifying an acceptable model is
impossible. Hence, the feedback loop suggesting that success in the creation of a
mathematical model is not forthcoming may serve to demotivate the group to persist.
In this sense, success in mathematical modeling is directly related to affect. The
counter situation may likely be true as well. If, for instance, a group is achieving a
high degree of success in finalizing a mathematical model, then the group may be
highly motivated to persist with the creation.

Conclusion

In this chapter, a review of affect, mathematical modeling, and cognition was

provided. However, the theory presented was rather concise and will be
supplemented by experts in this book. Given the importance of mathematical
modeling and the applications to all levels of mathematics, providing the field of
mathematical psychology with insight regarding affect during mathematical
26 S. A. Chamberlin

modeling is invaluable. Moreover, such insight might help ascertain the process that
aspiring mathematicians use to facilitate understanding of mathematical principles
and understanding affect in mathematical modeling episodes may have a direct
effect on cognition.

References

Aiken, L. R. (1972). Research on attitude toward mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 19, 229–234.
Aiken, L. (1974). Two scales of attitude toward mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 5, 67–71.
Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (1982). Assessing affective characteristics in schools. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in schools (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Art Institute (2017). The history and evolution of cell phones. Retrieved on 19 May, 2017 from:
https://www.artinstitutes.edu/about/blog/the-history-and-evolution-of-cell-phones
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the
selection of science based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329–345.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain.
New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education (n.d.). Douglas McLeod. Accessed on
17 May 2017 at: https://newscenter.sdsu.edu/education/crmse/douglas_mcleod.aspx
Chamberlin, S. A. (2008). What is problem solving in the mathematics classroom? Philosophy of
Mathematics Education, 23, 1–25.
Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). A review of instruments created to assess affect in mathematics. Journal
of Mathematics Education, 7, 167–182.
Coleman, L. (2006). A report card on the state of research on the talented and gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 346–350.
De Visscher, A., & Noël, M. P. (2014). The detrimental effect of interference in multiplication facts
storing: Typical development and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
143, 2380–2400.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1991). Interactions between cognition and affect in eight high
school students’ individual problem solving. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th
annual meeting of psychology of mathematics education-North America (Vol. 1, pp. 29–35).
Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1993). Analysis of interactions between affect and cognition in
elementary school children during problem solving. In J. R. Becker & B. Pense (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 15th annual meetings of psychology of mathematics education-North America
(Vol. 2, pp. 56–62). Pacific Grove, CA: San Jose State University, Center for Mathematics and
Computer Science Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domain in mathematical problem-solving. In
E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the international group for the
psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 209–216). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1999). Aspects of affect: Mathematical intimacy, mathematical
integrity. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd conference of the international group
for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 249–256). Haifa: Technion University,
Department of Education in Technology and Science.
Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in Mathematical Modeling 27

DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving:
A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 131–147. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10649-006-9028-2.
Educational Testing Service (1951). Proceedings of the invitational conference on testing prob-
lems. Conference held in New York on 3 November, 1951.
Feierabend, R. L. (1960). Review of research on mathematics education. In Research problems in
mathematics education: Reports for a conference on psychological problems and research
methods (OE-12008 Cooperative Research Monograph No.3) (pp. 3–48). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instru-
ments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.
Goldin, G. A. (2017). In C. Andrá, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson, & P. Liljedahl (Eds.),. Teaching and
learning in maths classrooms Motivating desires for classroom engagement in the learning of
mathematics (pp. 219–229). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Grouws, D. A. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
New York: Macmillan.
Hannula, M., Evans, J., Phillipou, G., & Zan, R. (2004). RF01: Affect in mathematics education-
exploring theoretical frameworks. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the
28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol.
1, pp. 107–136). Bergen: Bergen University College.
Hertz, H. (1894). Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange dargestellt. Leipzig:
Barth.
Higgins, J. L. (1970). Attitude changes in a mathematics library utilizing a mathematics through
science approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1, 43–56.
Hoyles, C. (1982). The Pupil’s view of mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
13, 349–372.
Jastrow, J. (1901). Some currents and undercurrents in psychology. Psychological Review, 8, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075124.
Lawson, D., & Marion, G. (2008). An introduction to mathematical modeling. Unpublished
manuscript. Retrieved on 19 May, 2017 from: https://people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~madjl/course_
text.pdf
Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable mathematics education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought
revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.
Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2012). An investigation of the Fennema Sherman anxiety subscale.
Sage Journals, 46, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612459198.
Ma, X. (1999). A meta- analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 520–540.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
28, 26–47.
Maaß, J., & Schlöglmann, W. (2009). Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Maher, M. (1900). Psychology: Empirical and rational (4th ed.). New York: Longmans, Green, and
Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/13950-012.
Malmivuori, M. L. (2001). The dynamics of affect, cognition, and social environment in the
regulation of personal learning processes: The case of mathematics. Unpublished doctoral
28 S. A. Chamberlin

dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved 23 January, 2011 from http://ethesis.

helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kas/kasva/vk/malmivuori/
Malmivuori, M. L. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63,
149–164.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). New York/London: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to present.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 637–647.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1989). Affect and mathematical problem solving. New York:
Springer.
Messick, S. J. (1979). Potential uses of non-cognitive measurement in education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 281–292.
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings,
generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30, 65–88.
Mill, J. (1878). Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind (Vol. 1). London: Longmans, Green,
Reader, and Dyer.
Pinel, P. (n.d.). Retrieved on 26 April, 2017 from: http://www.pinelschool.org/pp.htm
Presmeg, N. (2003). Creativity, mathematizing, and didacticizing: Leen Streefland’s work con-
tinues. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 127–137.
Quarteroni, A. (2009). Mathematical models in science and engineering. Notices of the American
Mathematical Society, 56, 10–19.
Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. The Elementary School
Journal, 84, 558–580.
Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 551–554.
Romberg, T., & Wilson, J. (1969). NLSMA Reports, No. 7, The development of tests. Eric
Document: ED084112.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. London: A. Millar.
Suinn, R. M. (1970). The mathematics anxiety rating scale. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State
University, Department of Psychology.
Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics
education: The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tuohilampi, L. (2017). Developing an analyzing tool for dynamic mathematics-related student
interaction regarding affect, cognition, and participation. In C. Andrá, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson,
& P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in maths classrooms (pp. 207–215). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Valentiner, T. (1930). Non-intellectual influences in intelligence testing. Industrielle
Psychotechnik, 7, 198–208.
Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics
education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 54, 9–35.
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical
Modeling – An Overview

Katrin Vorhölter, Alexandra Krüger, and Lisa Wendt

Abstract The importance of metacognition in modeling processes is not questioned

in the international discussion on modeling. However, in contrast to the assumed
importance, a relatively small number of studies were conducted focusing metacog-
nition in modeling. One of the reasons may be the fact that metacognition is a rather
vague concept developed in different domains and with different conceptualizations.
Another reason could be challenges in measuring metacognition. In this article, we
will first present concepts of metacognition, which are used by the studies presented
afterwards. In addition, we will describe different methods and instruments for
measuring students’ metacognition concerning modeling as well as important
research results. We will close with a summary and open research questions as
well as a description of a study that tries to tackle some of these open questions.

Keywords Metacognition · Metacognitive knowledge · Metacognitive strategies ·

Mathematical modeling · Modeling competencies

Metacognition is a field of interest in different domains, reaching from the psycho-

logical perspective to educational sciences. For a long time, it was not clear, if there is
an overall metacognition for different domains, or if metacognition in different
domains is of a different nature. Veenman (2011) summarizes, that novices or younger
learners develop their metacognitive skills and knowledge in different domains and
task-related; later, metacognitive skills become increasingly overarching. In the inter-
national discussion on mathematical modeling, the importance of metacognition for
modeling processes is widely accepted (Blum 2011). Research on mathematical
modeling processes repeatedly reveals the possibility to overcome cognitive barriers
while solving modeling problems by using metacognition (Stillman 2011). However,
research concerning metacognitive modeling competencies is still at its beginning.

K. Vorhölter (*) · A. Krüger · L. Wendt

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: Katrin.Vorhoelter@uni-hamburg.de; alexandra.kruger@uni-hamburg.de;
lisa.wendt@uni-hamburg.de

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 29

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_3
30 K. Vorhölter et al.

Concerning the fact, that metacognition has been raised as a topic of research in
different domains with different aims and origins, the definition of metacognition is
not explicit and therefore, often described as fuzzy. In the first part of this paper, we
contrast different types of conceptualizations with respect to their aims and conclude
metacognitive knowledge and skills for the modeling process. Afterwards, we
specify metacognition necessary for modeling processes by means of a selected
modeling problem. In the second part of the paper, methods for measuring different
facets of metacognition used in the field of mathematical modeling are summarized.
It becomes clear that there is not a single method for measuring students’
metacognitive modeling competencies, but several, that all have weaknesses and
strengths. The third part of this paper aims at presenting empirical results about
metacognition in modeling processes. Research results referring to the importance of
metacognition in modeling processes and the influence of metacognition in students’
modeling processes are summarized. Furthermore, possibilities for promoting stu-
dents’ metacognition as well as teachers’ requirements for fostering students’ meta-
cognition are presented. The paper closes with research questions that still need to be
answered in the future and the presentation of an ongoing study aiming at answering
some of the open research questions mentioned before.

Conceptualizations of Metacognition in Research

on Mathematical Modeling

In recent years, the relevance of metacognition has increased in the context of

mathematical modeling. According to Kaiser (2007), metacognition is part of global
modeling competencies. Thus, it is quite important to involve metacognitive activ-
ities during modeling processes in order to support modeling competencies.
Concerning this, Blum (2011) underlines: “There are many indications that meta-
cognitive activities are not only helpful but even necessary for the development of
modeling competency” (Blum 2011, p. 22).
Yet, there is still no consistent definition of metacognition (e.g. Veenman et al.
2006). There is a huge variation of definitions of the concept of metacognition as it
reaches from the knowledge about one’s own thinking to the field of self-regulated
learning in problem solving processes (Schoenfeld 1992). The terms metacognition
and self-regulated learning are often used synonymously, although they derive from
different conceptual roots and theoretical perspectives. Whereas metacognition
initially focused on people’s thinking about cognition, self-regulated learning
strongly emphasizes the regulation of learning processes and learning outcomes.
Nowadays, research on metacognition considers self-regulation as a part of meta-
cognition, whereas researchers in the field of self-regulation consider metacognition
as a part of self-regulation.
Not only the distinction between metacognition and self-regulation, but also the
distinction between metacognition and cognition is often criticized and named as
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 31

vague and arbitrary (Veenman et al. 2006). Usually, metacognitive processes are
seen as higher-order processes monitoring and regulating lower-order cognitive
processes (Veenman 2011), for example, Flavell suggests “cognitive strategies are
invoked to make cognitive progress, metacognitive strategies to monitor it.” (Flavell
1993, p. 154).
Due to the different origins, theoretical conceptualizations of metacognition differ
a lot. Thus, in the following section we will illuminate different leading concepts of
metacognition to give an overview.

The Concept of Metacognition

One of the first definitions of metacognition can be traced back to Flavell (1976):
‘Metacognition’ refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and
products or anything related to them (. . .). Metacognition refers, among other things, to the
active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation
to the cognitive objects on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or
objective (Flavell 1976, p. 232).

In the taxonomy developed by Flavell and Wellman (1977), the term meta-
memory was coined. It is characterized as (a) memory relevant characteristics of
the individual itself, (b) memory relevant characteristics of the task, and (c) potential
employable strategies. This aspect of metacognition is often called declarative meta-
knowledge. It is differentiated in firstly, the knowledge about a person’s variables,
which contains the knowledge about certain personal characteristics, regardless if
these characteristics are temporary or permanent. Moreover, the person’s variables
can relate to the specific person as well as to others. Secondly, the knowledge about
task variables describes any relevant task characteristics during task processing. In
this case, the type of a task can exert influence how to work on it. At last, the
knowledge about strategic variables contains certain experiences and recognitions,
which were undergone using certain learning strategies. Therefore, the knowledge
about strategic variables requires the activation of a person’s knowledge and task
variables. Furthermore, the taxonomy of Flavell and Wellman (1977) is completed
by the aspect of sensitivity. The authors are convinced that it is not enough to only
know certain variables but rather develop a feeling for using certain strategic
activities during the work on problem-solving: “It goes without saying that, like
all of us, the young child is constantly learning and recalling things incidentally, i.e.,
without any deliberate intention to learn or recall.” (Flavell and Wellman 1977, p. 7).
This is what the students shall get during task processes: They shall activate those
strategies intuitively. Moreover, Flavell (1979) established the classification in
(a) metacognitive knowledge (described before as meta-memory),
(b) metacognitive experiences, (c) goals (or tasks), and (d) actions (or strategies).
Another important concept of metacognition is the perception of Brown. She
follows Favell’s concept by combining the understanding of knowledge with
32 K. Vorhölter et al.

metacognition (Brown et al. 1983) referring to the psychological perspective on

metacognition and focusing on the differentiation between knowledge about cogni-
tion and controlling as well as the regulation of cognition. Knowledge about
cognition is described as something that is stable and one can talk about, although
it should be considered that it is incorrect in many cases. On the other hand, the
regulation of cognition is something that is instable and an executive controlling
aspect of the metacognition. Furthermore, Brown classifies the regulation of cogni-
tion in three different processes: Planning activities, monitoring activities during
learning and evaluating results. Planning strategies for example are (1) to forecast
results, (2) to design strategies, (3) to play through different possibilities during the
process. Brown describes monitoring activities as those, which students monitor,
prove, or by which they change their learning strategies (if necessary). The evalu-
ation of results includes an examination of whether the chosen strategies were
effective and efficient in order to solve the problem or not. Brown observes that it
is quite hard to differentiate between cognition and metacognition and further, that
there are different traditions metacognition emerged from so that it is sometimes not
quite clear, which one is referred to (Brown 1984).
Finally, there is the concept presented by Sjuts (2003) who divides metacognition
into a procedural, declarative, and a motivational component of metacognition. The
procedural metacognition contains the functions of planning, monitoring, and prov-
ing (i.e. that you should imagine yourself looking over your own shoulder and
checking your actions). These take place before, during, and after task processing.
The declarative component of metacognition comprises three types of knowledge
about cognition: Firstly, diagnostic knowledge, which is about one’s own and also
about other persons’ thinking; secondly, evaluating knowledge about tasks and
requirements; thirdly, strategic knowledge about solution plans and their chances
of success. The last component of metacognition, the motivational aspect, says that
motivation and the power of volition are necessary for the use of metacognitive
strategies. These conditions must either be already given or need to be developed
(Sjuts 2003). In comparison to other concepts, Sjuts extends the definition of
metacognition by this component.
In most concepts of metacognition, scholars differentiate between cognition and
regulation of cognition (Brown 1987; Schraw and Dennison 1994) or also refer to
metacognitive knowledge and the usage of metacognitive strategies or
metacognitive skills. Knowledge of cognition comprises declarative knowledge
about the process in general, procedural knowledge about the execution of cognitive
strategies as well as conditional knowledge on how strategies can be implemented.
This means, metacognitive knowledge comprises knowledge about what kind of
metacognitive activities exist and further, knowledge about how metacognitive
strategies can be implemented as well as the knowledge why and when those
strategies can be used (Schraw and Moshman 1995). Moreover, regulation of
cognition implies comprehension using metacognitive strategies, which help stu-
dents to control and regulate their activities. At least, three different components of
metacognitive strategies can be distinguished: planning, monitoring (and regulat-
ing), and evaluating.
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 33

In the following, we would like to present, what is associated with the declarative
and procedural component of metacognition in detail.

Metacognition in Modeling Processes

Hattie et al. (1996) point out that metacognitive competencies become increasingly
important in connection with the growing complexity of a task to be solved.
Modeling tasks are complex problems, because neither the mathematics to be used
nor the adequate understanding of the real-world situation is provided for the
students. Further difficulties are created by the nature of the modeling problems,
which stem from students’ actual or future everyday lives, from their environments
or from sciences. Thus, metacognition is judged as increasingly important for
solving modeling problems (e.g. Maaß 2006; Vorhölter and Kaiser 2016).
Referring to the general concept of metacognition, metacognitive modeling
competencies can be divided into declarative meta-knowledge and procedural
metacognitive strategies. Declarative meta-knowledge contains (among others):
• knowledge about the characteristics of a modeling problem, such as:
requirement for developing an individual approach
requirement for investigating the data as input or about making adequate
assumptions
requirement for using context knowledge
requirement for developing a simple but adequate model.
• knowledge about useful strategies for solving modeling problems
knowledge about (heuristic) strategies
knowledge about the different steps of a modeling cycle (so that it can be used as
a metacognitive tool)
• knowledge about the capabilities of oneself and other individuals involved
knowledge about the mathematical competencies of oneself or other individuals
involved
information about the work specific preferences

Metacognitive strategies for working on a modeling problem can be

differentiated into:
• strategies for planning the solution process considering
the task that has to be worked on,
the involved persons,
specific circumstances
34 K. Vorhölter et al.

• strategies for monitoring and, if necessary, regulating the working process, which
can for example be done by
using the modeling cycle as a tool,
applying strategies systemically and goal-orientated
realizing cognitive barriers
• strategies for evaluating the modeling process in order to improve the modeling
process
An illustration of how these metacognitive aspects appear in the process of
working on a modeling problem within a group is given in the next chapter.

Necessary Aspects of Metacognition to Work on the Modeling

Problem “Uwe Seeler’s foot”

In the following, we illustrate the occurrence and importance of metacognition while

working on the modeling problem “Uwe Seeler’s foot” as an example (for a detailed
presentation of useful metacognitive strategies while working on this problem see
Vorhölter (2018)).
The problem statement (see Fig. 1) shows pictures of a sculpture of a foot of
Uwe Seeler, one of the famous players of the soccer club HSV from Hamburg,
Germany. In the text, a citation from a well-known newspaper in Hamburg (called
Abendblatt) is given. The writer explains that the real foot of Uwe Seeler fits 3980
times into the sculpture. Students must decide if this statement can be correct. In
addition, Uwe Seeler’s shoe size is given. To find a solution there are at least two
different ideas: on the one hand, the idea of a hollow sculpture, which can be filled
up with shoes of the given size, can be considered; on the other hand, a comparison
of the volumes may lead to a solution. Students usually chose one of the two
following approaches1:
• with the help of the scale of the sculpture (which has to be calculated by the
values estimated or investigated), one can conclude how many times the real foot
fits into the sculpture (concerning the volume).
• one can simplify the sculpture as a prism or split it into several geometric bodies
such as a cuboid and a prism (see Fig. 2) and the real foot in the same way. Then

1
Another approach, of course, is to identify how much water a foot of size 42 displaces. After that,
the amount of water can be multiplied with 3,980. The calculated volume need to be compared with
the real sculpture in Hamburg. Students need to think about whether their calculated volume can be
realistic or not. In fact, this approach was only observed once due to difficulties in realizing this
experiment.
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 35

Fig. 1 Modeling problem “Uwe Seeler’s foot”

Fig. 2 Possible solutions for splitting the foot into geometric bodies

the volume of the geometric bodies of the sculpture and the real foot can be
calculated and compared.
Thus, the modeling problem “Uwe Seeler’s foot” is a rather complex one, as the
students have to develop a mathematical model on their own based on their individ-
ual mathematical knowledge and have to identify necessary information from the
text and investigate or estimate missing values, which are used for the model.
Considering that working on such complex problems is usually done in groups
(at least in schools), not only the metacognitive competence of single group mem-
bers is important for a successful working process, but also the knowledge and
strategies shared in the group. In the following, we will present useful and necessary
36 K. Vorhölter et al.

metacognition for successfully working on the modeling problem in a goal-

oriented way.

Metacognitive Knowledge

To find a solution, students must estimate the values by using comparable figures,
have to be able to develop a model on their own, to judge the model and, if
necessary, develop and work on another model.
Concerning metacognitive knowledge, the following aspects are important:
• students must be aware of the characteristics of the modeling task. In this
particular case, they have to be aware that several approaches are possible and
that they have to decide which one to use. They must also be aware of the fact that
they are not only allowed to use context knowledge (such as the height of the
person in the photo to estimate the size of the sculpture), but they have to make
assumptions (for example, they could measure their own foot size or look up the
size of a foot with size 10 ½).
• students have to know useful strategies for solving modeling problems. To work
on this problem successfully, useful strategies can be on how to get the necessary
data and formula, how to organize the work in the group (for example work-
sharing), how to validate the received solution and how to use the modeling cycle
as a tool.
• students have to be aware of the capabilities of oneself and other group members,
in order to choose one model to plan their approach, manage their time and in the
end present the work process in class (e.g. Who knows how to calculate the
volume of a chosen figure? Who is able to identify the necessary values? Who can
look up a missing formula?). Thus, the work can be shared efficiently in the
group. This leads to the procedural aspect of metacognitive modeling competen-
cies, the use of metacognitive strategies.

Metacognitive Strategies

Regarding metacognitive strategies, the strategies used by a student individually and

the strategies shared in the group can be distinguished.
To be able to develop a mathematical model, it is very important that students use
strategies for getting to a common understanding (the volume of “Uwe Seeler’s foot”
is asked for). Thus, the question that has to be answered (“Is it possible?”) has to be
identified clearly. Based on this common understanding, students can begin to
identify important and unimportant information in the task as well as missing
information and items. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate or investigate missing
information. Regarding our task, the shoe size is mentioned, so the volume of a foot
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 37

of this size can be found out by investigating or by measuring a real foot of this size.
The size of the sculpture can be estimated by comparing it to the height of the woman
standing next to the sculpture. Although strategies for retrieving information are
rather cognitive, the decision to use a particular strategy is a matter of metacognition
and depends on conditional meta-knowledge. Thus, the interaction of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies becomes obvious. Furthermore, a more or less explicit
planning of the whole solution process or at least parts of the following working
process is a matter of metacognitive strategies as well. Students should at least
decide for one model to work with (as far as it does not cause a blockage) or split
the group and work on two models separately at once or work on different models
one after the other together in the group. With regard to the mentioned problem, it is
useful as well to split the group so that students can measure or research different
variables simultaneously; for example, part of the students measure a foot with shoe
size 10 ½, others measure the proportions of the sculpture on the photo. Here again,
the strategies used to find out the necessary values are cognitive, whereas the
decision, which strategy to use, is a matter of metacognition.
During the work on the modeling problem each student must monitor oneself.
Additionally, at least one student of the group should monitor the group progess
continuously. Usually, monitoring the group progress is not the task of an individual
student, but several students are monitoring different aspects or at different times.
Monitoring during the working process includes taking care of the time left as well
as the progress of the work. The latter can be done by posing questions and
explaining the procedure to each other. This way, a common failure (conversion of
units) can be prevented or at least detected early. Furthermore, misleading assump-
tions as well as incorrect or too complex models can be identified quite early. If
problems are identified, students must use strategies to regulate their work. Problems
can be divided into those that hinder following a sense of direction and a goal-
oriented work and, those that cause great blockages in students’ further work. An
example for a regulating strategy, which was used, while no blockages (i.e., stopping
work/progress due to any number of factors) have been identified, is that students tell
themselves to work on the tasks and do not speak too much about other things during
working time or demand each other to decide for one approach. If blockages have
occurred, a possibility for regulation is to try to identify, in which step of the
modeling cycle these are and to find out thereby what to do next. Another strategy
for regulating is deciding, whom to ask for help. Sometimes, regulating can lead to
re-planning the further working process. After working on the modeling problem
“Uwe Seeler’s foot” and finding out the dimensions of the feet, the students will see
that their results are significantly larger than the values mentioned in the newspaper.
So, their result should be surprising for them, which normally prompts them to
search for explanations. In many cases, students do not trust their own calculations,
so they try to detect errors in their calculations or in the whole modeling process.
Both often result in going through the modeling cycle once more. If the students do
not find any errors, they will ask themselves automatically, whether the result really
matches the real problem as well as the real-world model or does not. This validation
of the modeling process is an important part of the monitoring process.
38 K. Vorhölter et al.

After finding a solution for the given modeling problem, students have to evaluate
the modeling process in order to find out, what can be improved next time. The
evaluation should refer to their own behavior as well as to the group work. It should
cover several aspects like working behavior, used strategies, time management,
cooperative group work as well as methods applied to overcome blockages.
The description of useful and necessary metacognitive knowledge and skills
presented above is based on observations of several groups of students working on
the problem. However, measuring the metacognitive knowledge and skills used is
challenging and is still under discussion (see for example Schellings et al. 2013;
Veenman 2005). Different methods for measuring metacognition used in the field of
mathematical modeling are presented in the following chapter.

Measuring Students’ Metacognition

Until now, several methods were (and still are) used for measuring metacognition in
modeling. This is not astonishing, as metacognition comprises different facets (see
chapter 2) and there has been a discussion in measuring metacognition as such.
(Schellings et al. 2013; Veenman 2005).
In general, online-methods like thinking aloud and observations are distinguished
from offline methods like questionnaires and interviews. The latter can be divided
further into pre- and post-methods. The validity of online and offline methods have
been compared in several studies, many of these comparing thinking aloud protocols
to questionnaires. (Schellings et al. 2013) Schellings et al. (2013) demonstrated that
the correlations between both measuring methods are usually moderate to low. As
students’ ability of reporting used strategies is doubted, questionnaires were seen as
less valid instruments than online approaches. However, Schellings et al. (2013)
developed a three-point-frequency questionnaire based directly on the taxonomy for
coding think-aloud protocols. Twenty ninth-graders were asked to study a text and
think aloud simultaneously. After studying the text, they were given the question-
naire. The overall correlation between the questionnaire and the think aloud pro-
tocols (r¼0.63) was promising. (Schellings et al. 2013).
Most of the instruments for measuring metacognition in modeling were adapted
from instrument of other domains, whereas others were developed by analyzing
modeling processes. In the following, different methods for measuring various facets
of metacognition are presented. Furthermore, their advantages as well as their
limitations are displayed.
Metacognitive knowledge about mathematical modeling processes (characteris-
tics of modeling problems and their special demands, useful domain specific strat-
egies as well as individual abilities with regard to working on modeling problems of
all group members), is assumed to be crucial for working on modeling problems
successfully. Thus, in a qualitative study with 42 students Maaß (2007) analyzed
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 39

misconceptions concerning modeling as part of (inappropriate) meta-knowledge

about modeling processes. Students’ meta-knowledge was measured by analyzing
interviews and concept maps, which students had to create two times during the
study (in the middle and at the end) on their own. To create the concept map,
different terms related to the modeling process as well as to the teaching unit were
given to the students, who were asked to develop a visual representation of these
terms. The concept maps were analyzed, not the process of drawing them. In
addition, the students were given a rather less complex modeling task together
with an inappropriate solution of the task and they were asked to solve the task
correctly. While doing so, they were observed and asked to assign their approach to
the modeling cycle. The concept maps were analyzed with regard to questions such
as in which way the terms were arranged, in which way the terms relating to the
teaching unit were assigned to the theoretical terms, which terms could not be
assigned at all and which appropriate conceptions and misconceptions could be
reconstructed. To validate hints from the concepts maps, sections of the interviews
were consulted.
In contrast to this, Brand (2014) measured students’ meta-knowledge on model-
ing by using a paper-and-principle-test as part of a test measuring students’ modeling
competencies three times (as a pre-, post- and followed-test of her study on fostering
students’ modeling competencies). In one of the test-items, 377 students of grade
9 were asked to match 14 extracts of the problem-solving process to the appropriate
part of a modeling cycle. Furthermore, she asked students to assess useful
metacognitive strategies for modeling on a four-point Likert scale, focusing on
planning, monitoring and regulating of modeling processes. Thereby, conditional
knowledge about useful metacognitive strategies for modeling was measured (Brand
2014). These test-items were used in the ongoing study MeMo (Vorhölter 2018) as
part of the modeling test used in this study. The items for measuring students’
conditional knowledge on useful metacognitive strategies were modified and
supplemented by items for evaluating with reference to Rakoczy and Klieme
(2005) and Ramm et al. (2006).
Schukajlow and Leiss (2011) also measured students’ conditional knowledge of
useful metacognitive strategies by using a questionnaire with a five-point Likert
scale. They reduced the items on strategies for planning and monitoring, which were
as well adapted to those of Rakoczy and Klieme (2005). Furthermore, students’
competence for solving modeling problems were tested by means of several model-
ing tasks. After working on the tasks, six of them were shown to the students again
and students were asked how they would act if, they were asked to solve these tasks.
Schukajlow used these items in several other studies (see for example Schukajlow
and Krug 2013; Schukajlow and Leiss 2011).
To measure students’ metacognitive skills and behavior during modeling, the
research group of Stillman has used several methods like interviews with students
after working on a modeling problem, videotapes of the working processes, audio-
recording of the working processes, working sheets and observations (see for
40 K. Vorhölter et al.

example Stillman 2011; Stillman et al. 2007; Stillman and Galbraith 1998). To
analyze the data, a framework for identifying students’ blockages was developed
based on the framework by Garofalo and Lester (1985) and used as a coding scheme.
The underlying assumption of this framework is that metacognitive strategies are
used especially for overcoming blockages, which occur in the modeling process.
This framework was developed further and still is. It is subdivided into five steps,
according to the steps of the modeling cycle used in this research group. Further-
more, Stillman and Galbraith observed cognitive and metacognitive strategies used
during modeling processes and divided them into the different phases of metacog-
nition (Stillman and Galbraith 1998).
Stillman et al. used online-methods, where metacognition was mainly rated by
researchers and not measured by students’ self-reports. In this way, they measured the
metacognitive strategies used and not the conditional knowledge about useful
metacognitive strategies. However, especially strategies for monitoring are often not
verbalized by students. Thus, researchers cannot rate them. Furthermore, these
methods are time- and cost-consuming, if used with a bigger sample. For evaluating
those strategies and to measure metacognitive strategies of a bigger sample, a ques-
tionnaire was developed in the study MeMo (Vorhölter 2017) in several steps. Four
hundred thirty-one students of grade 9 had to fill in this questionnaire just after
finishing their work on a modeling problem at two points in time: after working on
the first modeling problem as well as after working on the last of six modeling
problems, which were part of an intervention study lasting ten months. The question-
naire comprises items on the individual strategy used (12 items) as well as on shared
strategies in the group (11 items) before, while and after working on the problem. For
the future, expert ratings are planned in relation to the students’ behavior in the
videotapes by using the same questionnaire as the students. Thereby, students’
answers can be compared to raters’ judgements. Furthermore, 57 groups of three or
four students each were videotaped, while working on the first and the last modeling
problem. Excerpts of the videos were used as a stimulus for interviews with 57 students
out of 17 of the videotaped groups and 14 teachers. Thus, students’ and teachers’
perception and attitude can be reconstructed from the interviews.

Empirical Findings

In the last years, the importance of metacognition for learning processes has been
proved several times (for a general overview see Veenman 2011; for an overview on
metacognition in mathematics education see Schneider and Artelt 2010). Besides,
the importance of metacognition for working on complex modeling problems
successfully and goal-oriented has been proven several times as well. Blum (2011)
even summarizes, that for developing modeling competencies, metacognition is not
only helpful, but crucial. However, there have only been a few studies focusing on
the influence of metacognition on students modeling processes. In the following,
research results regarding the influence of metacognition in students’ modeling
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 41

processes are presented. Afterwards, teaching units and arrangements aiming at

fostering students’ metacognitive modeling competencies are described with respect
to their potentials and limitations.

Metacognition in Students Working Processes

As mentioned above, metacognition is assumed to be crucial for successful modeling

processes. Studies focusing on the role of metacognition in modeling processes
analyzed difficulties and barriers occurring due to a lack of metacognition as well
as the productive usage of metacognitive strategies.
Thus, in a qualitative study Maaß (2006) identified misconceptions regarding
modeling as part of (inappropriate) meta-knowledge of modeling processes. Maaß
differentiates between misconceptions relating to (a) setting up a real world model
(e.g. simplifying and assuming being the same; it is possible to simplify so much that
working mathematically can be reduced to a minimum), (b) setting up a mathemat-
ical model (e.g. no difference between real model and mathematical model is
known), (c) the mathematical solution (e.g. numbers are always exact, solutions
have to be in terms of a number), (d) the interpretation and validation (e.g. validating
and interpreting are identical, validating is a degradation of modeling) as well as
(e) general misconceptions (e.g. every approach is a correct one, so there are not
failures; mathematics is not useful for solving real problems). In general, high
metacognitive knowledge of students with high modeling competencies was
reconstructed. Furthermore, Maaß revealed a relation between meta-knowledge
about modeling and modeling competencies: misconceptions about real models
were related to deficits in setting up a real model, misconceptions in validating to
deficits in doing so. Furthermore, Maaß identified a parallel development of both
meta-knowledge about modeling and modeling competencies, whereas the quality of
meta-knowledge in most cases was related to the performance in modeling.
Schukajlow and Leiss (2011) investigated the self-reported usage of cognitive
and metacognitive strategies during modeling activities. They specify cognitive
strategies as rehearsal, elaboration and organization strategies in contrast to the
metacognitive strategies planning, monitoring and regulating. In their study, they
could not find relations between students’ modeling competencies and the self-
reported usage of different learning strategies. Therefore, they considered two
factors. At first, it is possible that the use of strategies during modeling activities is
less important than assumed so far. Based on this assumption, there could be a lack
of essential competencies and knowledge instead of a lack of knowledge on strate-
gies. Another possible explanation relates to the restricted value of self-reported
strategies. Moreover, in the study of Schukajlow and Leiss (2011) the students used
planning strategies less than other strategies during their working process con-
sciously. A reason for this could be that students plan their working process
automatically.
42 K. Vorhölter et al.

The relevance of metacognition in modeling processes is emphasized by the

substantial studies by Stillman together with Galbraith, Brown and Edwards
(2007) (for an overview about the current state-of-the-art see Stillman 2011). One
of their aims was to identify metacognitive triggers, i.e. special situations, which
stimulate the use of metacognitive strategies during modeling activities. Considering
that working on modeling tasks is difficult and complex for students, there are many
barriers students have to overcome. Using metacognitive strategies helps students to
eliminate cognitive barriers during their modeling process (Stillman 2011). Goos
(1998) developed a model of how to deal with metacognitive barriers, which has
been transferred and supplemented by Stillman (2011) to the area of mathematical
modeling. Goos (1998) disposes so called red flag situations. At this point, students
become aware of specific difficulties. Red flag situations can take place in three
different ways:
(a) There is a lack of progress: In this case, the students should reconsider their
solution strategy and think about changing their strategy.
(b) Detection of an error: In this case, they should check their calculations and
correct them.
(c) Anomalous result: In this case, they should check their calculations as well and
should reassess their solution strategy.
Relating to Goos (1998), metacognitive success is defined as the recognition of a
red flag situation and the appropriate reaction on it. Stillman (2011) adds the
following three steps on how to overcome a red flag situation: At first, students
need to recognize the necessity of the implementation of a strategy. Secondly, the
main focus is on the selection of a strategy (keeping in mind that the students should
think about alternative strategies before specifying their model). Lastly, the chosen
strategy is implemented successfully. Stillman notes that this depends on the

1 1 2 2 3 4 3
5 6
Pre-Test I Pre-Test I

Students’ modelling Students’ modelling

competencies, meta- Teaching unit competencies,
knowledge and Six times, 90 minutes a time meta-knowledge
motivation and motivation
1 2 3
1 2 3 4 5 6

Pre-and Post-Test II
Questionnaire on metacognitive modelling competencies,
interviews with selected teachers and students

Fig. 3 Design of the study MeMo with two comparison groups (TT Teacher Training) groups with
focus on metacognitive modeling strategies (red), and used mathematics (blue)
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 43

students’ individual resources (relating to strategies) as well as on the task. With the
complexity of modeling activities in mind, it is comprehensible that the reaction on a
red flag situation is not always successful. Figure 3 demonstrates possible reactions
on red flag situations:
At first, it occurs, students do not recognize a red flag situation: “If they fail to
notice that something is amiss, for example, by persisting with the wrong strategy or
overlooking a calculation error.” (Goos 1998, p. 226). This case is called
metacognitive blindness. Furthermore, it is possible that students recognize a red
flag situation but are not able to react in an appropriate way. Goos (1998) differen-
tiates between the following:
• metacognitive vandalism (a red flag situation is recognized but the students react
in a destructive way, e.g., changing the problem in order to use available
knowledge)
• metacognitive mirage (students perceive a difficulty although it is none.)
Stillman and Galbraith (2012) add two more possible reactions:
• metacognitive misdirection (inadequate reaction on a red flag situation. Stillman
& Galbraith (2012, p. 101) value the metacognitive misdirection as way more
inappropriate as the metacognitive vandalism.)
• metacognitive impasse (progress becomes stagnancy. Neither reflection nor stra-
tegic efforts can help to overcome the blockage.).
As presented in the aforementioned chapter, Stillman et al. reconstructed several
metacognitive strategies and differentiated them into different aspects of metacog-
nition. However, this distinction is an analytical one and the interplay between the
categories has not been investigated. Recently, within the study Memo (see section
“Outlook” in this chapter for more information) the interplay of different strategies
used and reported by students was investigated. A factor analysis of 23 items,
divided into strategies used by an individual person and those shared in a group,
revealed a structure of three different aspects: both items on an individual level and
those on a group level could be divided into strategies used for evaluating the
working process, strategies used if blockages occurred and strategies used for a
(more or less) failure in the free working process (Vorhölter 2018).

Fostering students’ metacognition

As Veenman et al. (2006) point out, a vast majority of students acquire

metacognitive knowledge and skills spontaneously from their parents, peers or
teachers. However, metacognition can be fostered by addressing it directly. There-
fore, several teaching units as well as recommendations regarding classroom settings
and teacher behavior were developed in the last years. In general, three principals for
metacognitive instruction should be considered, that were referred to by Veenman as
the WWW&H rule (What to do, When, Why, and How):
44 K. Vorhölter et al.

(a) “embedding metacognitive instruction in the content matter to ensure

connectivity,
(b) informing learners about the usefulness of metacognitive activities to make them
exert the initial extra effort, and
(c) prolonged training to guarantee the smooth and maintained application of
metacognitive activity.” (Veenman et al. 2006, p. 9)
Successful programs for metacognitive instructions are for example Reciprocal
Teaching (Brown and Palincsar 1987), cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al. 1989),
IMPROVE (Kramarski and Mevarech 2003), and Schoenfeld’s method for promot-
ing problem-solving competencies (Schoenfeld 1992).
The effects of using strategies have been researched several times, and most of the
results are encouraging, though some of them are disappointing (Blum 2015). For
example, Schukajlow and Leiss (2011) did not find any significant correlation
between self-reported metacognitive strategies on the one hand and mathematical
modeling competences on the other hand. In this study, 86 students (grade nine)
participated. A test was used in order to evaluate modeling competencies as well as
students’ use of strategies. A result of this study is that students plan their working
process in much less cases than using other strategies. On the other hand, the study
showed that students evaluate planning processes as relevant. Schukajlow and Leiss
(2011) note that causally determined effects of planning strategies on students’
performance need to be surveyed. In most studies, planning strategies are never
investigated separate from other strategies, so that there are no results in this area.
To the contrary, Maaß (2006) used the following methods for imparting meta-
cognition in modeling in her study:
• metacognitive knowledge about the modeling process has been imparted
• different perceptions of students’ modeling processes were discussed.
• students’ mistakes were dealt with in a productive way and analyzed.
• based on a schema of the modeling process, students were demanded to plan,
monitor and validate their working process.
• different solutions were compared and discussed; reasons for different solutions
were reflected.
• positive examples of self-monitoring were pointed out.
• the teacher monitored the students’ working process.
The results of this study clearly indicate that most students developed
metacognitive competencies: many students at least show basic knowledge about
the modeling process and are able to relate steps of their working processes to
modeling terms like “reality” or “mathematical model”. At the end of the study, a
great part of the students show a deeper understanding of the modeling process and
developed adequate insights into modeling processes, for example referring to the
subjectivity of modeling processes (Maaß 2006).
In addition to the development of teaching units and therefore the providing of
learning opportunities, teachers are seen as crucial for fostering students learning of
metacognitive strategies. However, Schukajlow and Krug (2013) identified a greater
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 45

positive influence by the demand for developing multiple solutions on students’

planning and monitoring activities. With the learning environment DISUM as a
basis, two experimental groups of students working on modeling tasks in different
group compositions were surveyed. To focus on multiple solutions, each task was
used in two different versions. The intervention group was asked to work out two
solutions, whereas the other group did not need to do this. The metacognitive
strategies planning and monitoring were measured before and after a teaching unit
composed of five lessons. The scales used had already been established in former
studies. The acquisition of procedural metacognition seems to be due to the task
materials instead of respective teacher interventions (Krug and Schukajlow 2014;
Schukajlow and Krug 2013).
Stillman also focused on the role of teachers in modeling processes and demands
metacognitive competencies for teachers. According to Stillman, treating red flag
situations as metacognitive triggers can also be challenging for teachers. The
teaching of modeling activities is always complex for teachers. They play a key
role, because they have to monitor the working process of different individual
learning groups during mathematical modeling activities (Stillman and
Galbraith 2012). Strategic interventions can help to activate the students’ use of
metacognitive strategies and allow them to work on modeling tasks as independent
as possible (Stender and Kaiser 2015). Teachers have to reflect on a meta-meta level.
They have to recognize whether their students use metacognitive strategies in an
appropriate way or not. Thus, they monitor their students’ metacognition and act on
a metacognitive level themselves by recognizing if the perceived metacognitive
activities can be improved by using strategic interventions. (Stillman 2011, Stillman
and Galbraith 2012) Stillman considers two different levels: The macro level
observes how the teacher acts in general on this meta-meta level, whereas the
micro level takes into account, how individual interventions can be used to imple-
ment metacognitive strategies in order to overcome possible barriers in the individ-
ual context.
In the empirical discussion, there is the assumption that the use of a solution plan
can be seen as a metacognitive aid, particularly in case of difficulties (Blum 2015).
According to Maaß (2007), students perceive knowledge about the modeling process
as helpful and think that the modeling cycle can help orientating. The study DISUM
shows the importance of a solution plan composed of four stages: understanding the
task, establishing the model, using mathematics, and explaining the results (Blum
2011; Blum 2015). Using this, the students reported to apply strategies more
frequently than before the structure was learned. Moreover, the students’ usage of
a solution plan caused higher achievements than those, which were reached by the
control group (Blum and Schukajlow 2018, Schukajlow et al. 2015a, b). In addition,
according to Adamek (2016) students use a solution plan in every step, which can
help to monitor the modeling process step by step.
46 K. Vorhölter et al.

Summary and Open Research Questions

As mentioned above, the importance of metacognition in modeling processes is not

questioned in the international discussion on modeling, but it is rather rarely in the
focus of research. Outcomes of research sometimes do not come to the same results
although the studies are conducted in a similar way, but in other domains than
mathematical modeling. Furthermore, results cannot easily be transferred from or to
other settings because of different reasons: First of all, the understanding of model-
ing and modeling competencies differ depending on the researchers’ perspective on
modeling. Secondly, the concept of metacognition is rather vague, as it comprises
different facets than traditional mathematical problems do. Earlier in the chapter, we
introduced some of the most important concepts of metacognition and highlighted
their similarities and differences. However, these conceptualizations are theoretical
and have not been proved empirically in the domain of mathematical modeling
sufficiently yet. Vorhölter (2018) made the first step by providing a three component
model of metacognitive skills for modeling. However, this analysis did not aim at
revealing a correlation between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills
as well as a connection between metacognition in modeling and other facets of
modeling competencies. Thus, the following open questions remain:
• How can the relation between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills
be modelled?
• How are metacognitive modeling competencies and other facets of modeling
competency linked?
The second aspect of this paper was to summarize methods and instruments used
for measuring facets of metacognition in different studies. As shown above, all have
their strengths and weaknesses. In the domain of metacognition, there has not been a
study comparing the outcome of different methods yet. Thus, the problem mentioned
by Blum remains:
• “[H]ow to measure strategy knowledge, on the one hand, and strategy use, on the
other hand, and another problem is how to reliably link students’ activities to their
strategies” (Blum 2015, p. 88)
The third part of the paper dealt with empirical findings on metacognition used in
the modeling process by students and teachers as well as the effect of teaching units
on the promotion of students’ metacognitive modeling competencies. All studies
either are case studies or are embedded into a specific setting. Therefore, most results
cannot be transferred easily. Furthermore, the perception and evaluation of the ones,
who have to deal with metacognition in classrooms, i.e. teachers and students, were
not a focus. However, their attitude is crucial. Without being convinced of the
importance and usefulness of metacognition for modeling, metacognitive modeling
competencies cannot be provided and learned. Thus, the following questions still
remain, although first indications do exist:
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 47

• How can students’ metacognitive modeling competencies be promoted

effectively?
• What influences the effectiveness of teaching units on metacognitive modeling
competencies?
• In which way does the teacher influence the promotion of metacognitive model-
ing competencies? How should he or she behave, what competencies should he or
she have?
Answering these questions is crucial to get a better understanding of the influence
of metacognition on modeling processes.

Outlook

Some of the open research questions, mentioned above, are tackled by the research
project MeMo (Metacognitive Modeling competencies). The study MeMo has been
carried out at the University of Hamburg, Germany (Vorhölter, Krüger, Wendt) and
aims at the evaluation of a learning environment, which was designed in order to
stimulate students’ use of metacognitive strategies during modeling processes. It
took place from October 2016 to July 2017 with 23 classes of grade nine and ten of
Hamburger schools participating.
The participating school classes were divided into two groups. One group focuses
on the stimulation of metacognitive competencies whereas the second group deepens
mathematical competencies during modeling processes. Both groups work on
8 modeling activities in a period of 10 months. The modeling activities include a
pre- and a post-test right before and after working on the same six modeling tasks.
The pre/post design of the study was chosen in order to evaluate the modeling
competencies of the students. Additionally, the students execute another test to
improve their metacognitive competencies. This test takes place immediately after
the first and after the last modeling problem. The same questionnaires are used for
both groups. The difference between both intervention groups relate to the last
15 minutes of every modeling activity. After working on a modeling task in small
groups of 3 to 4 students, the modeling process is evaluated in a discussion with the
teacher with respect to a special focus: deepening mathematical or metacognitive
competencies.
The modeling activities are supplemented by 3 teacher trainings in each group.
For two modeling problems, a special teacher training was carried out with focus on
these activities. The concept of the teacher trainings covers a theoretical background,
a didactical preparation of the following two modeling activities as well as accom-
panying materials (every participating teacher gets a teacher handbook with theory,
didactical analysis of every modeling task, course plans of every modeling activity,
evidences of potential barriers and respective teacher interventions, references with
respect to the consolidation of every intervention group, and much more). The
48 K. Vorhölter et al.

teachers were pleased to orient themselves roughly at certain guidelines (noted in the
handbooks) in order to guarantee comparability.
Apart from the analysis of quantitative data, the study MeMo aims at the survey
of qualitative data as well. In the context of two PhD works, the teachers’
perspective on the use of metacognitive competencies as well as the students‘
perspective is investigated. At two different times, right after the first and after
working on the last modeling task, teachers and students were interviewed. For this
purpose, the first and the last modeling process were videotaped. Following the
three-step-design (Busse and Borromeo Ferri 2003), certain excerpts of the video
were used in the interviews as stimulated recalls to ask focused questions towards
the students’ use of metacognitive strategies or to inspire teachers to reflect on the
use of metacognitive strategies.
By now, the data evaluation of the study MeMo has been finished. In the
following months, the qualitative and quantitative data will be analyzed with the
intent of learning about the following foci:
• teachers’ perception and evaluation of students’ use of metacognitive strategies
during modeling processes and its’ stimulation
• students’ perception and evaluation of their own use of metacognitive strategies
during modeling processes
• the influence of the teaching unit on the students’ metacognitive modeling
competencies including a comparison of both intervention groups
• conceptualization of the relation of metacognitive modeling competencies and
other sub-competencies of modeling competence and of the correlation between
different facets of metacognitive modeling competencies
Thereby, some of the open research questions presented above may be answered.

References

Adamek, C. (2016). Der Lösungsplan als Strategiehilfe beim mathematischen Modellieren -

Ergebnisse einer Fallstudie. In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2016, herausgegeben von
Institut für Mathematik und Informatik der Pädagogischen Hochschule Heidelberg (Eds.).
Münster: WTM.
Blum, W. (2011). Can modeling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In
G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. A. Stillman (Eds.), International perspectives on
the teaching and learning of mathematical modeling, trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modeling. ICTMA14 (Vol. 1, pp. 15–30). Dordrecht: Springer.
Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modeling: What do we know, what can we do?
In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical
education (pp. 73–96). Cham: Springer.
Blum, W., & Schukajlow, S. (2018). Selbständiges Lernen mit Modellierungsaufgaben – Untersuchung
von Lernumgebungen zum Modellieren im Projekt DISUM. In Schukajlow S., & Blum W.
(Eds.), Evaluierte Lernumgebungen zum Modellieren. Realitätsbezüge im Mathematikunterricht
(pp. 51–72). Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20325-2_4
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 49

Brand, S. (2014). Erwerb von Modellierungskompetenzen: Empirischer Vergleich eines

holistischen und eines atomistischen Ansatzes zur Förderung von Modellierungskompetenzen.
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Brown, A. L. (1984). Metakognition, Handlungskontrolle, Selbststeuerung und andere, noch
geheimnisvollere Mechanismen. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metakognition,
Motivation und Lernen (pp. 60–109). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition.
In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension skills: A natural
history of one program for enhancing learning. In J. D. Day & J. G. Borkowski (Eds.),
Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions for theory, assessment, and instructional prac-
tices (pp. 81–131). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrera, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering,
and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology
(Cognitive development) (Vol. 3, 4th ed., pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.
Busse, A., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2003). Methodological reflections on a three-step-design com-
bining observation, stimulated recall and interview. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik,
35(6), 257–264.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newmann, S. E. (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in
honor of Robert Glaser. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of
reading, writing, and mathematics (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. Resnick, L (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical
performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176.
Goos, M. (1998). I don’t know if I’m doing it right or I’m doing it wrong! Unresolved uncertainty in
the collaborative learning of mathematics. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching
mathematics in new times (pp. 225–232). Gold Coast: Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia Publication.
Hattie, J. A. C., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.
Kaiser, G. (2007). Modeling and modeling competencies in school. In C. Haines (Ed.), Mathemat-
ical modeling (ICTMA 12). Education, engineering and economics; Proceedings from the
twelfth international conference on the teaching of mathematical modeling and applications
(pp. 110–119). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The
effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research
Journal, 40, 281–310.
Krug, A., & Schukajlow, S. (2014). Metakognitive Lehrerinterventionen bei der Bearbeitung von
Modellierungsaufgaben mit multiplen Lösungen. In R. Roth & J. Ames (Eds.), Beiträge zum
Mathematikunterricht (pp. 675–678). Münster: WTM-Verlag.
Maaß, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? ZDM, 38(2), 113–142.
Maaß, K. (2007). Mathematisches Modellieren. Aufgaben für die Sekundarstufe 1. Berlin:
Cornelsen.
Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2005). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente
zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie. “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und
50 K. Vorhölter et al.

mathematisches Verständnis”: 1. Befragungsinstrumente. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung.

Vol. 13. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF [u.a.].
Ramm, G. C., Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R. H., Leutner, D., & Schiefele,
U. (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Münster: Waxmann.
Schellings, G. L. M., Hout-Wolters, v., Bernadette, H. A. M., Veenman, M. V. J., & Meijer,
J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive activities: The in-depth comparison of a task-specific
questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28
(3), 963–990.
Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM - The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149–161.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning. A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychological Review, 7,
351–371.
Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2013). Planning, monitoring and multiple solutions while solving
modeling problems. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th confer-
ence of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp.
177–184). Kiel: PME.
Schukajlow, S., & Leiss, D. (2011). Selbstberichtete Strategienutzung und mathematische
Modellierungskompetenz. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 32, 53–77.
Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015a). Scaffolding mathematical modeling with a solution
plan. ZDM, 47(7), 1241–1254.
Schukajlow, S., Krug, A., & Rakoczy, K. (2015b). Effects of prompting multiple solutions for
modeling problems on students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3),
393–417.
Sjuts, J. (2003). Metakognition per didaktisch-sozialem Vertrag. Journal für Mathedidaktik., 24(1),
18–40.
Stender, P., & Kaiser, G. (2015). Scaffolding in complex modeling situations. ZDM, 47(7),
1255–1267.
Stillman, G. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and model-
ing tasks at secondary school. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.),
Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. ICTMA14. International Confer-
ence on the Teaching of Mathematical Modeling and Applications (pp. 165–180). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with realworld connections:
Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2),
157–194.
Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2012). Mathematical modeling: Some issues and reflections. In
W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & K. Maaß (Eds.), Mathematikunterricht im Kontext von Realität,
Kultur und Lehrerprofessionalität (pp. 97–105). Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.
Stillman, G. A., Galbraith, P. L., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). A framework for success in
implementing mathematical modeling in the secondary classroom. In J. Watson & K. Beswick
(Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, [held at Wrest Point
Hotel Casino, Hobart, Tasmania, 2–6 July 2007] (pp. 688–707). Adelaide, SA: MERGA.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-
method designs. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition.
Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.
Chapter 2: Metacognition in Mathematical Modeling – An Overview 51

Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A

discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211.
Veenman, M. V. J., Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and
learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1),
3–14.
Vorhölter, K. (2017). Measuring metacognitive modeling competencies. In G. Stillman, W. Blum,
& G. Kaiser (Eds.), Mathematical modeling and applications: Crossing and researching
boundaries in mathematics education (pp. 175–185). Springer.
Vorhölter, K. (2018). Conceptualization and measuring of metacognitive modeling competencies –
empirical verification of theoretical assumptions. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathe-
matics Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0909-x.
Vorhölter, K., & Kaiser, G. (2016). Theoretical and pedagogical considerations in promoting
students’ metacognitive modeling competencies. In C. Hirsch (Ed.), Annual perspectives in
mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics
(pp. 273–280). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing
Research Settings to Study Spontaneous
Metacognitive Activity

Marta T. Magiera and Judith S. Zawojewski

Abstract Drawing on current theories about the development of individuals’

metacognitive ability, a framework is proposed for designing fruitful environments
for research on spontaneous metacognitive activity. Using modeling problems as
examples, we argue that research settings that facilitate the study of spontaneous
metacognitive activity of problem solvers need to be designed with attention to
problem complexity, small group diversity, and the authentic documentation of
problem-solvers’ spontaneous metacognitive activity.

Keywords Spontaneous metacognitive activity · Complex problem solving · Small

group interactions · Research settings design · Modeling

Introduction

This chapter proposes guidance for designing research settings that optimize the
potential to observe and document spontaneous metacognitive activity. Given that
research on metacognition suggests that complex activity is associated with greater
frequency of metacognitive behaviors (Mokos and Kafoussi 2013), the first research
setting design principle suggests engaging subjects in challenging problem-solving
situations, such as mathematical modeling. The second principle promotes the use of
small groups of diverse problem-solvers in the designed research settings. A rea-
sonable level of diversity helps to ensure that during the collaborative problem-
solving process individuals encounter, and need to interpret and reconcile, ideas
different from their own. Further, the need to communicate among subjects exter-
nalizes thinking (both cognitive and metacognitive). Finally, since research on
metacognition requires the observation and documentation of problem-solvers’

M. T. Magiera (*)
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA
e-mail: marta.magiera@marquette.edu
J. S. Zawojewski
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 53

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_4
54 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

internal metacognitive activity, the third principle addresses the documentation of

problem-solvers’ authentic thinking. The emphasis of this principle is on deliber-
ately designing a research setting that is thought-revealing—i.e., rich in way(s) for
the researcher to capture subjects’ naturally externalized metacognitive activity.

Spontaneous Metacognitive Activity

A variety of current theoretical perspectives, including socio-cognitive, sociocultural

and situative, link social engagement during problem-solving activity to the devel-
opment of spontaneous metacognitive capabilities in individual students (e.g., Chiu
and Kuo 2009, 2010; Larkin 2006; McCaslin and Hickey 2001; Volet et al. 2013;
Zimmerman and Schunk 2001). Spontaneous metacognitive activity is executive or
control behavior observed as naturally occurring—rather than in response to
deliberate external prompting. These theoretical considerations are supported by
recent research which shifts conceptualization of metacognition from solely a focus
on and examination of individuals’ thinking about their own thinking to including
individuals’ thinking about the thinking of others (Hadwin et al. 2011; Iiskala et al.
2004; Magiera and Zawojewski 2011; Siegel 2012; Vauras et al. 2003; Whitebread
et al. 2007). The consideration of metacognitive functioning of individuals in social
contexts is re-conceptualized as a product of interactions between an individual, or a
group of individuals, and a surrounding context. When goals and solutions are
collectively co-constructed and the desired product is socially shared cognition,
group members regulate not only their own, but each others’ thinking and their
collective problem-solving activity (Hadwin et al. 2011; Hadwin and Oshige 2011;
Iiskala et al. 2004, 2011; Kim et al. 2013; Vauras et al. 2003).
Researchers describe the development of spontaneous metacognitive abilities
during social interaction in complex problem settings. For example, Larkin (2006)
explained how the collaborative nature of small groups naturally supports individ-
uals in learning the social skills of listening, contributing and sharing, which leads
to learning to question oneself—a metacognitive behavior. Furthermore, interac-
tions among individuals working together provide a natural context in which
verbal tools are used to regulate the behavior of others, serving as a significant
mechanism for activating one’s own metacognition. In that sense, metacognitive
activity, initially directed toward other’s thinking—over a series of experiences—
can be internalized within an individual. This Vygotskian developmental perspec-
tive suggests that essential to the acquisition of metacognitive capabilities are the
processes of assimilation and the internalization of metacognitive activity initially
directed at other’s thinking in social contexts. Individuals who spontaneously
engage in monitoring and evaluating the thinking of others are positioned to
internalize these social behaviors and self-monitor, self-evaluate, and self-adjust
their own performance efforts (Chiu and Kuo 2009).
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 55

Social aspects of metacognitive activity have been reported in a broad range of

empirical studies that show individuals working collaboratively during problem
solving who spontaneously (without any deliberate external prompting) try to
regulate the behavior of others. For example, Iiskala et al. (2004) reported on middle
school students working in pairs on a task who engaged in monitoring, controlling
and regulating one’s own performance, partner’s performance, and collaborative
joint performance. They described how these students spontaneously compensated,
monitored, and evaluated one another’s thinking. They also described how students
expressed awareness of their partner’s thinking and engaged in reciprocal monitor-
ing and complementing each other in regulating a shared performance over the task
episode. Other researchers made similar observations reporting how groups of high
school students solving mathematical modeling problems spontaneously expressed
metacognitive awareness, engaged in evaluation, and regulated their own thinking
by inviting each other to analyze one other’s thinking and shared solutions (e.g.,
Goos et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2013; Magiera and Zawojewski 2011).
The importance of complex cognitive activity for the development of
metacognitive abilities is clear. Mokos and Kafoussi (2013) investigated students’
spontaneous metacognitive activity while working on mathematical tasks of varied
levels of complexity (i.e., routine, open-ended, and authentic problems situated in
real-life contexts). They found that while students spontaneously engaged in
metacognitive planning in problems of all levels of complexity, spontaneous
metacognitive evaluation and comprehension monitoring were most frequently
occurring when students engaged in solving problems situated in authentic real-
life contexts. Such problems required students to find, sort, define missing informa-
tion, and formalize mathematical interpretations of a real life context. Mokos and
Kafoussi’s result suggests that a high level of realistic problem complexity might
provide a powerful research setting for observing and studying spontaneous
metacognitive activity.
An explanation for Mokos and Kafoussi’s results may be found in Funke’s
(2010) description of the nature of realistic complex problems as requiring
metacognitive coordination to manage a large knowledge base, and to flexibly
govern that knowledge to reach the desired goal(s). Similarly, Gravemeijer and
Stephan (2002) describe how problem solvers need to use higher-level abilities to
effectively make sense of and express a complex real-life situation using the
language of mathematics.
Realistic applied problems, such as real world mathematical modeling problems,
are complex, unique, and typically ill structured and ill defined (Funke 2010; Lesh
and Doerr 2003; Lesh et al. 2000; Lesh and Zawojewski 1992, 2007). Research
shows that the abilities required for solving such complex problems are different
from those represented, emphasized, and assessed in traditional curriculum docu-
ments and tests (Kartal et al. 2016; Schraw et al. 1995). For example, in their recent
study with college students, Kartal and colleagues found that conventional measures
of mathematics performance (i.e., standardized tests that included “problem solving”
portions) did not serve as valid predictors of student performance on mathematical
56 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

modeling activities. Schraw and colleagues describe how performance on solving ill-
defined complex tasks is independent of performance on solving well-defined tasks,
because ill-defined tasks engage a different set of skills when compared to problems
with well-defined problem space. Constrained problem situations in which the
problem space is clearly defined call for the application of a finite number of
concepts, known solution strategies, and usually have single correct, or convergent
answers. In contrast, ill-structured complex problems are typically based on real-
world contexts that have divergent solutions and require the integration of several
content domains, have multiple solutions, multiple solution paths, and several
criteria for evaluating solutions.

Principles for Designing Research Settings

The goal for the principles proposed in this section is to design research settings that
optimize opportunities to observe and document students’ spontaneous
metacognitive activity in problem-solving situations. Research suggests that prob-
lem solvers’ spontaneous metacognitive abilities develop over and within episodes
of social interactions in complex problem settings (e.g., Iiskala et al. 2004;
Whitebread et al. 2007). Therefore, the proposed principles encourage the creation
of problem-solving environments as research sites that support the real-time devel-
opment of metacognitive capabilities that facilitate managing complex problem
situations while simultaneously dealing with many interacting factors and variables,
(Lin et al. 2005).
Lesh et al. (2003b) observed that productive higher-ordered mental activity of
individuals varies greatly across problems and phases of problem-solving activity.
For example, Lesh and Zawojewski (2007) described how metacognitive strategies
“free” of evaluative stances, such as brainstorming, are needed early on in the
problem-solving process to freely generate ideas for approaching a problem.
Although monitoring might be needed to “keep an eye” on a proposed strategy,
interpretation, or the general problem constraints, an early metacognitive goal during
collaborative problem-solving is to avoid shutting down the idea-generating pro-
cesses prematurely, compared to later stages of solution process when selecting or
modifying ideas to better fit the problem situation at hand require more detailed
monitoring. As a result, productive metacognitive activity and problem-solving
processes must be studied together as a co-dependent activity, since they are
entangled and exist as part of a complex cognitive system. The data gathered during
such experiences is authentic and compelling, and can be used to develop deep
understanding of how metacognitive capabilities evolve spontaneously. Overall, the
challenge for researchers is to find optimal ways to elicit, capture, and document
the data.
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 57

Design Principle 1: Realistic Complex Activity

The Realistic Complex Activity Principle ensures that a problem solver’s solution
process will involve iterative cycles of expressing, testing and revising ways of
thinking about the problem situation and the proposed solution.
Task complexity has been identified in the existing literature as an essential factor
that activates problem-solvers’ metacognitive functioning (e.g., An and Cao 2014;
Baker and Cerro 2000; Efklides 2006, 2009; Kim et al. 2013; Lin et al. 2005; Prins
et al. 2006). Thus effective research settings need to be designed in a way that
amplifies opportunities for problem-solvers to use metacognition as they simulta-
neously attend to several highly interconnected variables, clarify vaguely defined or
unclear goals and constraints, deal with multiple solution paths, or consider multiple
criteria for evaluating solutions. Different levels of conceptual and cognitive engage-
ment (e.g., analyzing, creating, selecting and reducing information, reformulating
problem situations, making decisions, setting priorities) directly activate different
types of metacognitive activity. A research setting designed to engage problem
solvers in iterative cyclical processes of revising and evaluating one’s interpretation
of the problem situation and evolving solution requires ongoing monitoring, evalu-
ating, and judgment-making about one's own performance and product.
Lin et al. (2005) pointed out that the nature of problems used in prior research on
metacognition constitutes a primary weakness of early metacognitive research. The
problem environments were designed as explicit teaching interventions, rather than
to nurture spontaneous metacognitive activity. Therefore, limited opportunity was
available for students to make adaptations to their understanding of the problem
environment or range of expected solutions, since the tasks selected were typically
well defined, value free, of limited duration, and seldom grounded in the
complexities of real-world considerations. Instead, Lin and colleagues argue that
to elicit the development of metacognitive abilities students need to work in realistic
complex problem situations, which frequently involve making changes to one’s
interpretation of the problem environment (e.g., considering only some, not all,
involved variables, defining what constitutes a “quality” solution), and one’s initial
and intermediate solutions.
One example of realistic complex problems that engage students in iterative
cycles of expressing, testing and revising ways of thinking are model-eliciting
activities (MEAs) used by Lesh and colleagues (e.g., Lesh et al. 1983, 2000,
2003a; Lesh and Doerr 2003). To develop a solution to an MEA small groups of
problem solvers are required to design a mathematical model (e.g., a sequence of
steps, a representation, or an equation) and by doing so generate knowledge about
unknown systems of interconnected variables that the problem solvers themselves
identify and define. These problems are “realistic” in that they are open-ended and
client-driven, and typically contain incomplete, ambiguous, or undefined informa-
tion about the problem context. Such ill-structured and ill-defined characteristics are
purposefully used to prompt groups to negotiate definitions, rationales and assump-
tions, enhancing opportunities for metacognitive activity spontaneously emerge,
58 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

consistent with Kim’s et al. (2013) description of environments (e.g., grappling with
complex problems) that can trigger metacognitive activity.
Another example of complex problems comes from the Cognition and Technol-
ogy Group at Vanderbilt (2010) and their Jasper Series, which was developed as an
environment for testing the tenets of “anchored instruction.” Their technology-based
problem environments were designed to engage students in reasoning about complex
real-life situations (typically presented in a form of a video) closely linked to
students’ experiences. Students needed to formulate problems for themselves using
information about the problem situation embedded in the video, and draw on their
problem-solving skills and multiple mathematics concepts as they develop a prob-
lem solution. In successive classroom trials with different versions of Jasper series,
the researchers documented how Jasper Series problem environments spontaneously
engaged students in metacognitive planning and comprehensive monitoring.
While MEAs and the Jasper problems were designed using different sets of
design principles, both represent the intent of the Realistic Complex Activity
Principle. Both types of problems are complex, situated in a real life contexts.
Both require students to go through iterative cycles of considering evolving or
multiple solutions, and require ongoing reflection on both the problem interpretation
and the current solutions’ strengths and weaknesses. An additional striking similarity
of both sets of activities is the use of small groups in the problem-solving process,
leading to the second research setting design principle.

Design Principle 2: Small Group Diversity

When solving a complex problem in a small group, problem solvers spontaneously

question each other, reflect aloud on their own, others, or shared goals, evaluate
current ways of understanding, and plan solution-seeking activities together. Such
externalized conversations often reveal spontaneous metacognitive activity. Oppor-
tunities to elicit metacognition are enhanced when group members compare and
contrast different points of view, ways of thinking, assumptions about a real-world
context, etc. Therefore, the Small Group Diversity Principle ensures that participants
in a problem-solving group are selected to represent a reasonable range of mathe-
matical and sociocultural backgrounds, experiences, or sets of values. Designing a
research setting involves selecting reasonably diverse group members, setting expec-
tations for members to respect and seriously consider each other’s perspectives, and
monitoring and intervening when one member permanently overtakes the entire
direction of group activity during the problem-solving episode.
This principle is consistent with recent interpretations of metacognitive activity
that have shifted from a sole focus on and examination of individuals’ thinking about
their own thinking, to include individuals’ thinking about the thinking of others, and
a group’s collective mental activity (Hadwin et al. 2011; Iiskala et al. 2004; Magiera
and Zawojewski 2011; Siegel 2012; Vauras et al. 2003; Whitebread et al. 2007).
Research settings for the study of metacognitive activity need to be designed in a
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 59

way that provides opportunity for group members to engage in individual and
interdependent and collectively shared regulatory processes as they work toward
shared outcomes. Social interactions can amplify not only the frequency of sponta-
neous metacognition, but also the opportunity to observe the evolution of primitive
problem-solving and metacognitive behaviors (e.g., group members arguing over
problem interpretation) to more mature capabilities (e.g., analyzing different points
of view, coordinating next steps) (Lesh and Zawojewski 2007).
Research suggests that encountering diverse perspectives can prompt one to
spontaneously engage in metacognitive activity (e.g., Hogan 2001; Magiera and
Zawojewski 2011). For example, Hogan (2001) observed students spontaneously
activating their metacognitive thinking and engaging in planning and regulating their
thinking in, what she termed as, conceptual contexts. She described these situations
as one in which the students “were in the midst of building an explanation, . . .
needed to stop and think, go back and reconsider evidence,” (p. 210). She observed
that students engaged in metacognitive activity during group or class discussions,
and when they shared complex ideas or expressed confusion about a specific idea
proposed for examination. Focusing on a small group of students solving a series of
mathematical modeling problems, Magiera and Zawojewski (2011) identified a wide
range of social-based and self-based contexts in which the students spontaneously
engaged in metacognitive activity (awareness, regulation or evaluation). They found
that most frequently students become metacognitive about their own thinking or the
thinking of others when they were attempting to interpret diverse perspectives about
the problem situation or a solution approach. In these situations, group members
shared and considered different mathematical approaches or interpretations of the
problem and its solution, examined new information proposed by peers, or cogni-
tively struggled with information presented by their peers. Magiera and
Zawojewski’s study uncovered two additional, albeit less prevalent, social situations
in which students spontaneously engaged in metacognitive activity: when problem
solvers sought to reconcile with other group members disagreements about the
mathematical processes, interpretations, or results; and, when the students engaged
in and shared explanations, such as when trying to explain to each other the
effectiveness of a strategy or approach.
The focus on small group diversity in planning the research setting requires the
selection of participants that are not only reasonably diverse, but also likely to
engage productively and communicate with each other. Stacey (1992) demonstrated
that simply forming small groups does not necessarily promote metacognitive
activity within or among individual group members. Goos and Galbraith (1996)
linked group members’ metacognitive functioning in collaborative problem-solving
situations to individuals’ ability to respect each other’s perspectives (no group
member dominates group activity) and distribution of knowledge (members share
common mathematical knowledge but also bring their unique experiences and
perspectives into the collaborative activity). Thus, to optimize the potential to
observe metacognitive actions and behaviors, participants with diverse perspectives
who demonstrate promise for productive and externalized collaborative interactions
need to be purposefully sought. Once the group members have been selected for
60 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

reasonable diversity and propensity to function well as a group, the subsequent

challenge is to design effective and efficient ways to document the emergence of
spontaneous metacognitive activity.

Design Principle 3: Authentic Thought Documentation

The Realistic Complex Activity Principle and the Small Group Diversity Principle
work hand-in-hand to maximize opportunity to elicit and externalize students’
authentic metacognitive thinking through their conversations and written interac-
tions as they engage in the multiple cycles of problem interpretations and devel-
oping problem solutions. While these two principles ensure environments in which
students’ give voice to their spontaneously developing metacognitive capabilities,
the challenge to researchers is to document these moments and episodes in
practical ways that will inform the research question posed. The Authentic
Thought Documentation Principle ensures that authentic data is captured that
will inform the driving research question in a permanent form that lends itself
well to analysis.
Various approaches have been used to document students’ thinking during
problem solving episodes and there is consensus among researchers that each
individual method used to access metacognitive behaviors is fallible. Schoenfeld
(1992) noted that any methodology used to assess cognitive-metacognitive func-
tioning might provide an adequate picture of some behaviors, but a distorted view of
others. For example, consider “think aloud” protocols commonly used in early
studies of mathematical problem-solving strategies to identify instances of
problem-solving strategies and metacognition. The data from think-aloud protocols
might provide insights into the question about the frequency and type of problem
solving strategies students apparently used. However, the same data from these
protocols were more limited in terms of assessing the effectiveness, or spontaneity,
of identified metacognitive strategies. van der Stel et al. (2010) argued “using
metacognitive activity more frequently does not automatically mean that the
metacognitive skills have the higher level of quality,” (p. 221) nor that problem-
solving performance has been improved. Baker and Cerro (2000) criticized think-
aloud protocols for their potential to disturb a student’s work on task. They also
noted that protocols in which a researcher prompts a student to think aloud during
problem-solving episode might raise a question whether a metacognitive, or
problem-solving strategy is a naturally occurring strategy, or perhaps, wouldn’t
have occurred at all if the student wasn’t “probed” to articulate his or her thinking.
The challenge, then, is to design a research setting in which spontaneous
metacognitive activity can be documented as it naturally occurs.
Lesh and colleagues (Lesh et al. 2000) explicitly designed MEAs as activities
with multiple entry points, allowing problem-solvers to articulate diverse perspec-
tives during the solution development. As problem solvers negotiate and evaluate
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 61

the skills and abilities each individual brings to the table, the group externalizes
their thinking, recognizes, evaluates and makes decisions regarding allocation of
available cognitive resources. By design, embedded in MEAs problem statements
are criteria which group members can use to judge the effectiveness of their
thinking and their solution models, rather than requiring an external authority to
assess the goodness of intermediate solution attempts. These criteria intensify the
opportunity for spontaneous metacognitive activity to be externalized. Problem
solvers typically engage in iterative modeling cycles, traversing back and forth
between constraints of the applied context and solution criteria in the ongoing
evaluation of their evolving solution model. Spontaneous metacognitive activity is
typically externalized as a well-functioning small group goes through several
iterations, testing and reviewing their models with respect to the articulated criteria
and constraints. For example, consider an MEA problem statement that describes a
client who needs to publish a procedure for her employees to use for cutting out
pieces of material from a rectangular-shaped piece to be assembled together as a
soccer ball (Soccer Ball MEA, https://unlvcoe.org/meas/). The requirement that
problem solvers create a procedure (i.e., model) that is to be communicated to a
clearly stated audience (the client’s employees) ensures that the group’s interme-
diate and final products, as written directions, reveal their mathematical ways of
thinking. However, while such written products are rich for studying problem-
solvers’ mathematical thinking (conceptual understandings), they might not
always provide sufficient level of information about specific questions concerning
spontaneous metacognitive activity.
Designing a way to capture spontaneous metacognitive activity elicited by rich
learning environments (i.e., settings that meets the first two principles) is a
challenge. The third design principle requires simultaneously externalizing stu-
dents’ cognitive and metacognitive evolution in permanent ways, and in a form
that can be used to address the specific research questions. The research setting
designed needs to be feasible and practical. While it might seem that the best way
to accomplish these goals is to videotape complex problem-solving sessions with
small diverse groups, careful consideration needs to be given to a number of issues.
For example, perhaps student conversations alone would provide sufficient data to
inform the specific research question; on the other hand perhaps facial expressions
and gestures are important to the research question, which would require multiple
cameras. The design process for documenting authentic thought necessarily
involves iterative cycles between consideration of the research question and the
planning of the documentation methods.
One example of a study that examined spontaneous metacognitive activity
during mathematical modeling illustrates the challenge of planning an authentic
thought-revealing research setting. Magiera and Zawojewski (2011) sought to
identify the specific characterizations of situations and contexts associated with
the spontaneous elicitation of metacognitive activity of a small group of students
collaboratively solving a series of mathematical modeling problems. Their chal-
lenge was to capture and document authentic student engagement in spontaneous
monitoring, evaluating, controlling each other’s thinking and collective group
62 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

activity, and in monitoring, evaluating, or controlling their own thinking. The

researchers expected that metacognitive activity directed at the thinking of others
would be readily seen in the videotapes of the problem-solving sessions, but they
were concerned that metacognitive activity directed at one’s own thinking would
be less apparent, if at all. The researchers were also concerned that their own
interpretations of the students’ interactions in the videotaped sessions would be
less authentic than students’ own interpretations. Therefore, Magiera and
Zawojewski designed a two-phase thought-revealing research setting. In the first
phase, a small group of students solved a series of MEA problems while the
interactions were captured on a videotape (using one camera). The students’
externalized their thinking as they interpreted team members’ proposed scenarios
for a solution model, and as the members of the group together reflected on, and
refined their collaborative ideas towards a “best fit” model. To prepare for the
second phase, the videotapes were analyzed by the researchers to identify
“metacognitive moments” (i.e., students evaluating each other thinking, reflecting
on their collaborative planning, or articulating their awareness of their own or
groups’ developing understanding). Then, in the second phase of data collection,
researcher-student interviews were videotaped as individual group members
interpreted their own thinking and described the context and situation that gave
rise to each presented and identified metacognitive moment. Magiera and
Zawojewski finally used the videos (and accompanying transcripts) of the second
phase interviews to generate, evaluate and iterate their own hypotheses about the
social- and self-based nature of the identified metacognitive moments. Magiera and
Zawojewski’s design of their research setting attempted to optimize occurrences of
metacognitive activity by achieving the first two principles, and then optimize
gathering data that was authentic and in a form that directly addressed their
research question.

Reflection: The Classroom as a Setting for Research

on Spontaneous Metacognitive Activity

We have shared and provided motivation for designing research settings in which to
study spontaneous metacognitive activity with three purposes in mind. The first
purpose was to plan research settings that have the potential to maximize opportunity
for spontaneous metacognitive activity to emerge (i.e., use of complex problems).
The second purpose was to enhance the opportunity for students to engage in
spontaneous metacognitive activity by establishing the need for the externalization
of student thinking by using reasonably diverse small groups. The third goal was to
enhance the authenticity and practicality of the data gathered. When students’
metacognitive activity emerges spontaneously as an inherent aspect of problem-
solving activity, without deliberate external prompting by researchers, the data
gathered is naturally occurring in real time, and therefore authentic. However,
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 63

planning for what data to collect and how to collect that data is a challenge to the
design of a research setting.
An important benefit of the three proposed principles is the close link between the
desired research setting and desired characteristics of classroom practice. The
potential to conduct such research in real classrooms is enhanced when researchers
work with teachers to use the first two principles to purposefully create classroom
situations that enhance students’ opportunity to engage in metacognitive activity.
Together they can work to create or select realistic complex problems that facilitate
multiple solution approaches, are open to interpretations, and are accessible to
students with diverse mathematical backgrounds and knowledge of problems’ real-
world context. The selection of students to form reasonably diverse small groups can
be facilitated by classroom teachers, who would have first-hand familiarity with
individuals and a similar goal to enhance learning opportunities through student
interaction. Classroom cultural norms that have been already established by teachers
can greatly enhance the research setting, when students expect to respect each other’s
points of view, contributions, and ways of thinking. The third principle, however,
goes beyond normal classroom practice and is largely left to the researcher to design.
The researcher, working in a classroom environment, is charged with finding
practical ways to gather permanent authentic data that will not only efficiently and
effectively inform the specific research question, but will be feasible for enactment in
a classroom.
When the researcher also acts as an agent for professional development, the third
principle for authentic thought documentation can be co-designed by the teacher and
researcher. Lin et al. (2005) stated that teaching has unique qualities and teachers
need to recognize that classroom situations, even when they appear similar, have
a number of hidden features that in fact make these situations different. They
described a professional development goal for teachers to recognize and identify
these features, and address them appropriately in the situation. Professional devel-
opment that engages teachers in researching their own practice may provide an
opportunity for parallel research activity between the teacher and the researcher. For
example, perhaps a teacher wants to explore whether metacognitive activity varies
across problems or across phases of problem solving, as hypothesized by Lesh et al.
(2003b). Or perhaps a teacher wants to investigate whether a particular
metacognitive activity is always productive, as questioned by Lesh and Zawojewski
(2007). When a teacher has quest of his or her own alongside the researcher, then
meaningful opportunities can emerge for the teachers and researchers to work
together on designing the research setting. In such research settings, researchers
and teachers can jointly plan for the enactment of the three principles; what problems
to use with students, how to group students, and how to document students’ thinking
in a way that is authentic and efficiently and effectively can inform each of their
research questions.
64 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

References

An, Y., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design
problems solving and metacognitive skills in online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 552–568.
Baker, L., & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw &
J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln, NE:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2009). Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning,
and teaching. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New research perspectives (pp. 117–136).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2010). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities,
differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321–338.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2010). The Jasper Series as an example of
anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment. Educational Psychologist,
27(3), 291–315.
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the
learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14.
Efklides, A. (2009). The new look in metacognition. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New
research perspectives (pp. 137–151). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition. Cognitive Processing,
11(2), 133–142.
Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way. Metacognitive strategies in collaborative
mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 229–260
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collab-
orative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.
Gravemeijer, K., & Stephan, M. (2002). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In
K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool
use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation and socially-shared regulation:
Exploring perspective of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Records, 113
(2), 240–264.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared
regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
Hogan, K. (2001). Collective metacognition: the interplay of individual, social, and cultural
meanings in small groups’ reflective thinking. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology
research (Vol. 7, pp. 199–239). Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning?
Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition within
primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393.
Kartal, O., Dunya, B. A., Diefex-Dux, H., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2016). The relationship between
students’ performance on conventional standardized mathematics assessments and complex
mathematical modeling problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science
(IJRES), 2(1), 239–252.
Kim, Y. R., Park, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Varma, S. (2013). Multiple levels of metacognition and
their elicitation through complex problem-solving tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32
(3), 377–396.
Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the
early years. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 7–27.
Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study. . . 65

Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathe-
matics 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 Associates.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (1992). Problem solving. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching mathematics
in grades K–8: Research-based methods (pp. 49–88). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical
problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts
and processes (pp. 263–343). New York: Academic Press.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, E., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-
revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R. A., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003a). Model development
sequences. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling
perspective on problem solving, learning and instruction in mathematics and science education
(pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003b). A models and modeling perspective on
metacognitive functioning in everyday situations where problem solvers develop mathematical
constructs. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling
perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 383–403). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational
Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255.
Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2011). The social- and self-based contexts associated with
students’ awareness, evaluation and regulation of their thinking during small-group mathemat-
ical modeling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 486–520.
McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A
Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Mokos, E., & Kafoussi, S. (2013). Elementary students’ spontaneous metacognitive functions in
different types of mathematical problems. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(2),
242–267. https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.201.3.29.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and
metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning
and Instruction, 16(4), 374–387.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in ill-defined problem
solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1–16.
Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem
solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3),
325–341.
Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups. Are two heads better than one. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 261–275.
van der Stel, M., Veenman, M., Deelen, K., & Haenen, J. (2010). The increasing role of
metacognitive skills in math: A cross-sectional study from developmental perspective. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 42, 219–229.
66 M. T. Magiera and J. S. Zawojewski

Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared- regulation and
motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia: An International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient, 46(1), 19–37.
Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iisjala, T. (2013). Metacognitive regulation in collaborative
learning: Conceptual developments and methodological contextualization’s. In S. Volet &
M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological
advances (New perspectives on learning and instruction) (pp. 67–101). New York: Routledge.
Taylor & Francis Group.
Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development
of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-
assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433–455.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and
academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 273–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures
and the Development of Mathematical Ideas

Lisa B. Warner and Roberta Y. Schorr

Abstract We describe the relationship that exists between shifts in engagement and
shifts in mathematical thinking, using the construct of engagement structures. The
engagement structure construct (Goldin et al. 2011) is a way to account for and
describe the complex dynamical interactions that recur as students solve mathemat-
ical problems. Our research is focused on a group of eighth grade students solving a
problem in a group setting in an urban district. Our analysis involves video-recorded
episodes, retrospective interviews and comprehensive field notes. We also document
the social conditions present in the classroom that surrounded the shifts. Our findings
suggest a variety of changes that can occur within an individual student, and across
students in the same classroom, depending upon the social context. At times,
changes in mathematical ideas preceded shifts in engagement, and vice-versa.
Aside from the within student differences, our research provides an example of
how, within the same classroom, students can have very different engagement and
mathematical experiences.

Keywords Problem solving · Student engagement · Engagement structures ·

Motivation

Theoretical Perspectives and Constructs

Engagement Structures: A Brief Overview

Student engagement is a critical part of mathematical learning (Middleton and

Jansen 2011; Middleton et al. 2017; Goldin et al. 2011). Engagement, as we refer
to it here, involves affective, cognitive, social, and other important dimensions

L. B. Warner (*)
William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA
e-mail: WARNERL4@wpunj.edu
R. Y. Schorr
Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 67

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_5
68 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

(Fredricks et al. 2004; Goldin 2017; Goldin et al. 2011; Gómez-Chacón 2011;
Middleton et al. 2016). These dimensions are highly complex, and inextricably
dependent upon, and influenced by each other. This co-dependency and complexity
is often ‘visible’ when students work together to solve cognitively challenging
problems (Gómez-Chacón 2017; Schorr et al. 2010a, b). In such situations, mathe-
matical understanding, social dynamics, and affect, for example, can shift, based
upon the highly individualized experiences and perceptions of the students, as well
as many other internal and external factors. For example, one student might feel
(momentarily) challenged by a question posed by a peer, while another might
consider it an opportunity to revise her thinking, another may choose to ignore it
entirely. Regardless of the response, the question may impact the in-the-moment
engagement of the questioner, the questioned, and those affirmed, annoyed,
overlooked or disinterested.
Research on engagement is sometimes focused on the longer term implications of
attitudes, beliefs, motivations, etc.. However, many recent studies focus on what
occurs ‘in-the-moment” (Goldin 2017; Goldin et al. 2011; Middleton et al. 2016,
2017). Middleton et al. (2016) note that: “Engagement in the moment is a place
where educators may have some control over the eliciting conditions for the devel-
opment of interest and goals, instrumentality and efficacy beliefs, prosocial behav-
iors, and productive affective structures” (pg. 25). Our own research, over the past
decade, has focused on the types of engagement that occur, in-the-moment, in
middle and high school classrooms, as students solve mathematical problems
(e.g. Epstein et al. 2007; Sanchez Leal et al. 2013; Schorr et al. 2010a, b). As a
result, we have introduced what we believe to be a necessary construct to account
for, and better understand the complex, dynamical interactions that seemed to recur.
We termed this construct an engagement structure. We now provide a very brief
description of this construct.
An engagement structure is a kind of behavioral/affective/social constellation,
situated in the individual as a psychological construct, and becoming active in social
contexts (see Goldin et al. 2011; Schorr et al. 2010b). Engagement structures can be
found in all aspects of human activity, not just during mathematical problem solving
(see Goldin et al. 2011 for a more complete discussion). Our conceptualization of
engagement structures incorporate several components including: a characteristic
motivating desire, one or more goals, implementation actions to achieve the moti-
vating desire (sometimes involving social interactions and sometimes involving
other patterns of behavior), “self-talk” (which refers to hypothetical internal speech),
sequences of emotional states, strategies, and modes of interactions. Engagement
structures are present within all individuals and become operative under given sets
of circumstances. These do not occur in isolation, indeed, they may reference each
other, and several may be active simultaneously. At times, as conditions or motiva-
tions change, one structure can ‘branch’ into another.
We now summarize several examples of the engagement structures that will be
discussed in this paper, and include brief examples to illustrate. (See also Goldin et al.
2011 and Schorr et al. 2010b for the first 6 engagement structures below; the last
2 structures are the result of current research by Warner et al. 2018):
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 69

• Check this Out (CTO): In this structure, the individual realizes that solving the
mathematical problem can have a payoff – either immediately, or at some future
point. The motivation to engage mathematically can lead to (intrinsic) interest in
the task itself, or heighten (extrinsic) interest in an external payoff. The student
therefore decides to devote (at least) some attention to the problem. An example:
a student realizes that if he solves the problem, he may get a good grade, which
will be pleasing to his parents. This realization results in solving the math
problem.
• I’m Really Into This (IRIT): Here, the individual has an intrinsic interest in the
problem or problem solving experience and develops deep concentration in the
process. This concentration is generally so intense that it can result in the
experience of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). An example: A student finds the
problem so intriguing that she “tunes out” her surroundings, not even aware that
the class is about to end.
• Get the Job Done (GTJD): This structure involves a person’s sense of obligation
to fulfill his part of a work “contract.” Ultimate satisfaction comes from doing the
work rather than enjoying the challenge of the task. As the student completes the
task, the focus is on finishing. An example: A student knows that the teacher has
told him to solve all three parts of a particular problem before moving on to
something else. He is therefore motivated to finish the work and moves through
all three parts (superficially in some cases), in order to finish and satisfy the
teacher.
• Stay Out of Trouble (SOOT): In this case, the person’s aversion to risk supersedes
the mathematical aspects of the task. The person avoids trouble at all costs, with
or without completing the work. An example: A student wishing to avoid conflict
may shun interactions that have the possibility of leading to trouble – either with
peers, or with an authority figure. The student may not contribute to his groups’
solution, even though he has valuable ideas, just to avoid conflict.
• Look How Smart I Am (LHSIA): This structure involves the person’s desire to
demonstrate to others that she knows something that the other person does not
(or does not know as well). The person may express her ideas to peers in an effort
to impress them with her superior knowledge. An example: A student is moti-
vated by impressing a peer and explains something to a peer using deliberately
complex terminology, simply to demonstrate her knowledge of the subject. (Note
that the peer may still benefit, but the overarching motivation is different than in
the structure that follows, LMTY.)
• Let Me Teach You (LMTY): This structure involves the person’s desire to teach
another person something that he knows that the other person does not know
(or does not know well). The person may explain an idea to a peer with the
genuine hope that the peer will learn something. An example: Unlike the student
in the structure above (LHSIA), a student explains something to someone else for
the purpose of genuinely helping the other person, without regard to showing off
his own expertise.
• Do as I say [DAIS] or Do as I want [DAIW]: This structure involves the person’s
desire to control a situation perceived as requiring compliance or obedience and
70 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

to have others do what he wants them to do. This may include communicating
directions, offering incentives or punishments (carrot and stick), communicating
a sense of obligation (what someone is supposed to do, or expected to do), and/or
imposing rules. He may get annoyed, frustrated or angry if someone does not
comply. An example: A student has a desire to control his fellow group members
and distributes the workload amongst them, telling each exactly what to do.
• Don’t Let the Group Down (DLTGD): In this structure, the motivating desire is to
“carry one’s weight”. There is an underlying desire to contribute positively to the
group, and not let others down. An example: A student may not be especially
interested in the problem, but sees her fellow group members actively pursuing an
idea. Not wanting to be viewed as a slacker, she explores her peers’ mathematical
ideas further, in the hope of contributing productively.
Our goal, for the purpose of this paper is not to provide an extensive overview of our
work on engagement, but rather use case studies to highlight the relationship that
engagement has to mathematical shifts in understanding.

Connection to Shifts in Understanding Mathematical Problems

Engagement structures are highly complex, and can change at any given moment.
We now discuss how engagement structures, particularly those mentioned above,
can coincide with shifts in mathematical understanding throughout the problem
solving process. We highlight these connections more specifically in the Results
Section.
Mathematical models involve the organization and development of knowledge
and how it evolves over time. We believe that all knowledge is organized around
situations and experiences. When a student is presented with a problem, ideas are
mapped into previously existing internal descriptive or explanatory systems
(models) that then guide actions. Models are not static; they can evolve as new
information is considered and as the need arises. They develop over time as the
learner refines, extends, tests and shares ideas (Schorr and Lesh 2003). (For a further
description of mathematical models, please see: English et al. 2016; Lesh et al. 2013;
Schorr and Lesh 2003; Schorr and Koellner Clark 2003; Schorr et al. 2010a). In this
chapter, we look at shifts in mathematical ideas, and see how they coincide with
shifts in engagement structures. We note that not all changes in mathematical
thinking result in fundamental conceptual shifts. Nonetheless, such modifications
can be indicative of, or precursors to, revisions in existing models.
Our guiding questions are: How do shifts in mathematical ideas impact engage-
ment, and similarly, how are mathematical ideas impacted by shifts in engagement?
How does this evolve over the course of a problem solving experience? What other
factors contribute to these shifts (i.e. teacher intervention, peer responses, etc.)? We
answer these questions by providing a detailed description of the classroom context
and social dynamic of the groups within which the students worked.
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 71

Methods

Subjects: For this study, we focus on two students who were part of a larger study
involving an eighth grade classroom that consisted of 20 students, 93% African
American and 7% Hispanic. The school is classified as low income in the largest city
in the state of New Jersey. The class was homogeneous and designated as a low
ability class (which in this school means that it was the lowest in terms of standard-
ized test scores at the eighth grade level).
Procedure: In the larger study, all classes, including the one that is the subject of
this paper, were observed in each of four cycles, with each cycle spanning a period of
two consecutive days. The first cycle occurred approximately one month into the
school year and subsequent cycles occurred later on. Prior to the start of a cycle, an
interview was conducted with the teacher to ascertain her plans for the lesson and
what she expected to happen. A post-lesson interview (using a stimulated recall
protocol) with the teacher and individual interviews with several pre-selected stu-
dents designated by the teacher, took place after each cycle (for more details see
Schorr et al. 2010b). Classroom interactions for each of the classes were videotaped
using three separate cameras (one stationary camera capturing whole-class interac-
tions and two roving cameras, primarily capturing pre-selected students and their
interactions) and all student and teacher interviews were videotaped using one
camera. Transcripts were created from videotapes and student work was collected
and digitized.
Subjects: For this paper, we chose 2 students. Both were chosen from the same
class during the first cycle (about 43 minutes of instruction each day in
2 consecutive days).
These 2 students were chosen because they were part of the group of pre-selected
students who were interviewed and because their shifts in engagement and coincid-
ing shifts in the problem solving process were different from each other. The first
student discussed below is Shay. He is tall in stature, and is, according to his teacher,
accorded a high social status amongst his peers. Will, the second subject of this
paper, is an immigrant, who happens to be smaller in stature, and is, according to the
teacher, lower in social status.
Data: We transcribed all observation and interview data. At least two to three
members of the research team viewed the data (alone and together) and chose
excerpts that they all believed provided evidence for the activation of the engage-
ment structures that had thus far been identified. Additional members of the research
team reviewed the decisions. Only after full agreement were segments chosen for
this study. Subsets of the larger research team further analyzed the mathematical
shifts that occurred during these sessions. That analysis forms the basis for this
research.
During the class session, the students were working in groups of three to five on
the following mathematical task1, chosen by the teacher:

1
The problem was adapted from Exemplars K-12 (2004) www.exemplars.com
72 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

Farmer Joe has a cow named Bessie. He bought 100 feet of fencing. He needs you to help
him create a rectangular fenced in space with the maximum area for Bessie to graze. Bullet 1:
Draw a diagram with the length and the width to show the maximum area. Bullet 2: Explain
how you found the maximum area. Bullet 3: How many poles would you have for this area if
you need 1 pole every 5 feet?

Results

In this section, we begin by presenting each student’s problem solving experience,

including mathematical shifts that coincide with shifts in engagement structures.
Next we present data from each of their retrospective individual interviews to
provide more evidence for the presence of specific engagement structures.

Shay’s Classroom Observation

The teacher encouraged the students to work in groups of three or four. Shay,
however, began by investigating the task alone, (for the first 13 minutes), as his
group members spoke to each other. Our characterization of his engagement begins
with the “Check This Out” structure. Initially Shay was creating a rectangle, adding
the 4 sides to equal 100 and calling 100 the area (however, the 100 represents the
perimeter). Shay said, “. . . it’s just got to be the area is a hundred. . . .see. (Begins to
calculate again) 15 and 15, that’s thirty, and then two numbers that equals up to
seventy, 35 and 35. There go one.” We infer that initially, his motivating desire was
to understand how to construct a rectangle using the 100 feet of fencing. A math-
ematical shift in the problem solving process occurred when he realized that it was
possible to create more than one rectangle with a perimeter (not area) of 100 feet. At
this point, he moved to the floor to investigate this problem, by himself, in order to
have more room and to further isolate himself from the others in his group (who were
talking about other things). At this point, he appeared to be genuinely interested in
solving the problem, indicating that the structure “I’m Really Into This” may have
become active. He seemed intrigued by the mathematics, “tuning out” other ele-
ments of the environment, including his rather talkative group members.
During the problem solving session, Shay only interacted with the other mem-
bers of his group when the teacher encouraged him to share ideas with them, or
when he found them to be useful. For example, when Shay created a 40 unit by
10 unit rectangle, the teacher encouraged him to work with a peer by saying,
“Okay, so now show him”. Shay responded by saying, “Like umm, the height
could be forty, and then this could be ten. . .”. During this time, we infer that “Get
the Job Done” became active for him, fulfilling an implied obligation to do as the
teacher asked (work with his peers).
Shay experienced some difficulty in figuring out the length and width of potential
rectangles. When the teacher walked over to his group, he told her that he was
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 73

“struggling” to figure out a height for a given width. The teacher then asked him
more about this, and he responded: “Because, if you trying to find the height. . .you
pick two heights and it won’t work for the other one.” His verbal explanation of the
struggle indicated a desire to understand the math. In Schorr et al. 2010b, we
discussed Shay’s willingness to display certain vulnerability by expressing the
difficulty he was experiencing in figuring out the problem. For the purpose of this
paper, we would also like to highlight that a mathematical shift occurred when Shay
became aware of the issue he was having in constructing the rectangles and was able
to express it to another person (in this case the teacher).
When Shay realized that many rectangles with a constant perimeter of 100 units
(using only whole numbers) could be constructed, he told his group members, “You
could do a lot of ‘em, . . .” He also said to a group member “You could do ummm,
look watch this, look. . . .hold on. . . .twenty three. . .and then twenty seven, twenty
seven. . .twenty seven, twenty seven equals to a hundred. I could do another one.”
We infer that this breakthrough also reinforced the “Get the Job Done” structure as
he quickly realized that constructing all possible rectangles with a constant perimeter
of 100 units would take a lot of time. Consequently, enlisting his group members
would help him complete this task more quickly. He said, “you can keep going but it
can go all day”. He spontaneously asked his group members to provide him with
supplies, such as a ruler and paper. He also began to direct his peers and organize the
work by saying, “Move, I know what to do, look. . .what number, look. . .we gonna
start, I’m gonna do the lower numbers, you do the higher numbers. . .” The other
members of Shay’s group worked on constructing the rectangles that he had assigned
them. It became obvious that he had a desire to complete the assigned mathematical
task correctly and thought that he needed the members of his group to construct as
many rectangles as possible to do this.
As Shay continued to work, he began to develop some strategies for building
rectangles with a perimeter of 100. Further, he found a method for constructing
rectangles with a constant perimeter. When the teacher asked him to explain his
method, he said, “Look, you do two sides and then you see what the remainder is and
then you. . .” His method involved finding the width given a specific length. He
added the side length to itself (for the length of two sides), subtracted the sum from
100, and divided the difference by two (to find the width). For any given length, he
now had a method to find the width. At this point in time, we infer that this
mathematical breakthrough coincided with a “Check This Out” structure. It appears
that his motive was to deepen his understanding and solve the problem. He realized
that finding the area of each rectangle by multiplying the length times width would
allow him to see which rectangle had the most space inside.
He continued with this strategy until he had another “aha” moment. Prior to this,
Shay’s choices of rectangles were not systematic. He now began to find the area of
the rectangle with dimensions of 23 by 27 feet, 24 by 26 feet, and then 25 by 25 feet
(see Fig. 1). Another mathematical shift occurred when he found an efficient way to
find the next rectangle by subtracting one from the length and adding 1 to the width
of the previous rectangle. He continued with this method until he came to the
conclusion that the rectangle with the maximum area had dimensions of 26 by
74 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

Fig. 1 Shay’s 23  27, 24  26, & 25  25 rectangles

24 (because he didn’t consider the 25 by 25 square to be a rectangle). During this

time period, it is possible that “Check This Out” and “Get the Job Done” were
operating simultaneously.
Next, we provide evidence that the “Do As I Say/Want” engagement structure
also became active. As Shay and his group members were recording their solution on
a large piece of chart paper, he directed the organization of their ideas. For example,
he said, “Just put them in order, just keep going. . .” We infer that Shay wanted
others to do what he told them to do, in this case, organize their ideas the way he
wanted them on the chart paper.
As Shay continued to direct his group members throughout the session, he
occasionally spoke to his peers with some annoyance in his tone. For example, by
the end of the first day’s session, Shay said to his group members, “That’s what we
been trying to do all this time” in response to his peer stating something that Shay
thought he should have already known (had he been listening to him). While it is
entirely possible that his words and actions were indicative of “Get the Job Done”,
we draw upon additional interview data to suggest that “Do As I Say/Want” became
active as well. Our inferences are based upon his responses to the interviewer about
these occasions and his tone of voice when talking about them, as will be discussed
in the interview section below.
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 75

During the problem solving process, the teacher encouraged each group of
students to write their solution on chart paper. She also told them that the groups
would be rotating and critiquing other groups’ work (as shown on the chart paper) by
writing comments on small pieces of paper, near the work. After Shay thought he
solved the problem, he became invested in seeing to it that all of his group members
understood his method. We suggest that “Get the Job Done” was active at this
moment, the goal shifting to a desire to get his group members ready to defend their
mathematical ideas as they rotated amongst the groups. We could also suggest that
“Let Me Teach You” became active and that Shay had a genuine desire to help his
fellow group members understand or solve the problem, which went along with
sharing his ideas with them. It is also possible that Shay wanted to look smart in front
of his group members, indicating that “Look How Smart I Am” may have become
active. We will provide further evidence for this when we present the interview
transcript. The three engagement structures could have been operating
simultaneously.
As Shay and his fellow group members rotated to critique other groups’ solutions,
Shay continued to try to help his peers understand the concepts. For example, one of
his group members was showing the teacher a 40 unit by 10 unit rectangle written by
another group. As the teacher asked questions, Shay attempted to help his group
member understand what the other group had done. When a student from the other
group (Dana) confronted Shay, he reacted quite firmly. This interaction is described,
at length, in Schorr et al. (2010a, b).
We now summarize the main shifts in Shay’s approach to the mathematics and
hypothesized engagement structures, below (see Table 1):

Shay’s Retrospective Interview

Retrospective interviews with careful examination of the classroom video revealed

more information about Shay’s mathematical understanding, perceptions of his
social interactions with peers, motivations, emotions and engagement. For example,
the interview confirmed that Shay had several instances in which he tried to help his
group members. However, as noted above and below, he avoided helping them
because he felt that they did not value him and his work.
Interviewer: How did you feel?
Shay: I felt. . . like, I was trying to help them. But they wouldn’t let me give
any help.
Interviewer: Do you feel like you try to help people a lot in class, or. . .?
Shay: No, [be] cause . . . but everybody thinks my work would be wrong,
because I play.
In the interview, Shay spoke about being confident in his mathematical ability but
did not think the other students had confidence in his mathematical ideas, because he
76 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

Table 1 Summary of Shay’s shifts in mathematical thinking and hypothesized engagement

structures as noted above
Hypothesized associated engagement
Shifts in mathematical thinking structures
Initial Initially, Shay began by constructing one Check This Out
approach rectangle (and labeled his sides 15, 15,
35 and 35). He added 15, 15, 35 and 35 to
equal 100, but was confused about the dif-
ference between area and perimeter, refer-
ring to the 100 feet as the area rather than
the perimeter.
Shift 1 He soon realized that he needed to focus on Check This Out
both area and perimeter, and that the
100 feet was a measure of perimeter.
Shift 2 He noticed that it was possible to create I’m Really Into This
more than one rectangle with a fixed
perimeter of 100 feet. He endeavored to find
several rectangles through a method of trial
and error.
Shift 3 He began to use a more systematic approach Check This Out, Get the Job Done
that involved adding a side length to itself and/or Do As I Say/Want
(for the length of two sides), subtracting this
sum from 100, and dividing the difference
by two. This method, if used correctly could
be used to find the width of a particular
rectangle. For any given length, he now had
a method to find the width.
Shift 4 He realized that the rectangles were Check This Out, Get the Job Done, Let
increasing in area in a particular manner. He Me Teach You and/or Look How
now focused on how the areas were Smart I Am
increasing (as the sides increased).
Shift 5 He continued using this method until he Check This Out, Get the Job Done, Let
came to the conclusion that the rectangle Me Teach You and/or Look How
with the maximum area had dimensions of Smart I Am
26 by 24 (because he didn’t consider the
25 by 25 square to be a rectangle).
Clearly, other structures may have been present. We opted to only highlight the ones for which we
have reasonable evidence

“plays”. He also spoke about his peers’ desire to argue, instead of focusing on his
mathematical explanations.
Interviewer: What about the people that you were working with in the group?
Shay: They act like they didn’t want to do anything, like, they wanted to
argue instead of like, seeing what I was talking about. But in the end,
it came down that I would be right anyway.
As Shay continued to speak about the other students’ off task behavior, his facial
expression and tone of voice indicated that he was annoyed with his group members.
This was consistent with the annoyance we heard in the tone of his voice during the
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 77

classroom session, when he issued directives to his peers. As noted above, this
provided us with additional evidence that “Do As I Say/Do” was present during the
problem solving session, as he was trying to “Get the Job Done”. Shay wanted to
have others do what he wanted them to do.
Shay also spoke about the way he contributed to his group by being the one to
start his group off.
Interviewer: So, do you think you contributed to your group?
Shay: Yes.
Interviewer: Can you give me an example?
Shay: Like, when we’re doing work, ain’t nobody ever start off. I had to tell
them to get out, to make as many rectangles as you can to find out
what the area is. And then we get the maximum area.
He spoke about working hard and feeling good about it. He said, “I play a lot. People
don’t expect me to do work, but when I work, I would work a lot. I try to work hard
at that moment.” He also spoke about others holding him back. He stated, “I felt like
some people would try to hold me back. They would think just because I do one
thing, I can’t do another. But it’s, it’s more than just playing.”
Some of Shay’s responses during this interview validated the inferences made
above. They also provide us with further insight regarding his motivations. For
example, he stated that he did try to teach his group members at one point during the
problem solving process, which validates that “Let Me Teach You” may have been
active.
He also spoke about his peers’ perceptions of him as someone who does not take
the mathematics seriously. This supports our inference that it is likely that “Look
How Smart I Am” was active, too, and it may explain why he may have felt the need
to show others that he is smart.
We are not sure if Shay’s action of helping his peers were motivated by a genuine
desire to help others or a desire to impress them, or both. It is also likely that one or
both of them were active along with “Get the Job Done”. Teaching the other
students, and also directing them, may have been a part of getting the job done for
Shay, which in the end may have been important for his group to defend their
solution, if questioned by the other groups.

Will’s Classroom Observation

Will was a member of a different group within the same class. He was often quiet
during the discussions that took place. We, therefore, have very few excerpts in
which he spoke.
By all outward appearances, there were few opportunities for Will to share his
own ideas. He did not assert himself at all. However, when the teacher walked over
to his group and asked the group a question, he occasionally answered her questions,
especially those directed specifically at him. We infer that “Stay out of Trouble” was
78 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

the primary structure active for Will for most of the sessions, as his main focus was
on avoiding interactions that might lead to conflict. We will provide evidence for this
in excerpts of observation and interview data below.
In the following excerpt, occurring at the beginning of the session, it is important
to note that one of Will’s group members drew a 40 unit by 10 unit rectangle on chart
paper before the teacher walked over. In response to the teacher’s questions about
that rectangle, Will made one suggestion to try different numbers. Will’s group
members ignored this idea.
Teacher: How can you prove that this is the maximum area?
Will: You can try different numbers and see if [they] will work.
Teacher: Okay, so how would you try different numbers? Do you want to try that
and I’ll be back?
Dana: Why we can’t just leave our maximum length like this?
Teacher: I didn’t say you couldn’t leave it like this. I was just asking do you
know. . . .how do you know that’s the maximum length?
The other students in the group continued to discuss this with the teacher as Will
began to write and draw silently.
We infer that Will’s silent drawing and writing may have been an attempt to fulfill
a desire to understand how to construct a rectangle with a perimeter of 100 feet,
indicating the activation of “Check this Out”.
Teacher: (asking Will) So what are you doing here?
Will didn’t answer her, but stared at the wall and ceiling. Over the next few minutes,
Will silently continued to write his ideas on his piece of paper. It appears that a
“Check This Out” structure became active for Will, as he drew a 30 unit by 20 unit
rectangle on his piece of paper.
Later in the session, the teacher walked back over to Will’s group.
Dana: We’re trying to figure out the, ummm. . . .well I know that we’re trying to
figure out the length and the width [be] cause you said that
Will: You said you could do different numbers. . .
Teacher: Who said that? . . .
Ghee: No I said that. But she said we can make a uhh uhh, that we need to find
the, uhh, area.
Teacher: I did say that
Dana: There, maximum area just means that. . .
The teacher then asked Will a question directly. Will answered her.
Teacher: So [Will] just said that, what did you say?
Ghee: The areas the inside of the box.
Will: . . . .Width is 30 and 20. (Ghee is laughing)
When the teacher asked Will to draw a rectangle with those dimensions, the students
in Will’s group told the teacher that he did draw it and crumpled it up and put it in
his desk.
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 79

Teacher: So can you draw that and show them? Turn your paper over and. . .
Ghee: He did do it.
Dana: He drew it.
Student: He balled it up.
Will went into his desk, began to unfold the balled up piece of paper in his hand and
laid it down to his left.
Teacher: Ok, so can you bring it over into the group and see what happens?
Will brought the paper over to his group members and in a very low tone, shared his
ideas with the teacher and students in his group. During the observation, it seemed as if
“Get the Job Done” became active, with a motive to do what the teacher asked of him
(bring over the crumpled up piece of paper to his group). We will later provide evidence,
with the interview data below, that the activation of “Don’t Let My Group Down” is also
possible if Will was acting on a desire to be a contributing member of his group.
We are still unsure if, prior to this moment, his group members ever saw the
dimensions of his rectangle, decided the rectangle they constructed was better, or
didn’t see it at all. We do know that his group members were aware that Will
crumpled up his mathematical work, put it in his desk, and did not use his mathe-
matical ideas. Later in this session, his group members decided to use the 40 by
10 rectangle and share it with the rest of the class. This result is discussed at length in
Schorr et al. 2010a, b.
In sum, after silently working on the math problem by himself, Will created the
30 by 20 rectangle, crumbled up his work, put it in his desk and stopped working on
the problem, out of fear of getting in trouble with his classmates (as noted in his
interview). We suggest that “Stay Out of Trouble” was active for Will, during most
of this classroom session. We infer that Will had a need to avoid interactions that
may lead to trouble with his peers. His fear of conflict seemed to supersede the
mathematical aspects of the task.
We summarize Will’s approach to the mathematics and hypothesized engage-
ment structures, below (see Table 2):

Will’s Retrospective Interview

Retrospective interviews revealed a lot more information about Will’s mathematical

understanding, reasons for his lack of social interactions with peers, motivations,
emotions and engagement. In this case, the interview was especially important, since
Will did not say much, and rarely interacted with peers, during the problem solving
session.
During the classroom observation, as noted above, Will’s group member, Dana,
only drew one rectangle on his group’s chart paper. This was not the one that Will
had drawn on his crumpled up sheet of paper. From Will’s retrospective interview,
we found out that he realized that it is possible to construct rectangles with different
dimensions for this problem, which indicates a shift in his mathematical thinking.
80 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

Table 2 Summary of Will’s mathematical thinking noted above

Shifts in mathematical
thinking Hypothesized associated engagement structures
Initial Will created a 30 by Primary Engagement Structure: Stay Out of Trouble
Approach 20 rectangle. Secondary Engagement Structures: Check This Out, Get
the Job Done and/or Don’t Let My Group Down
Clearly, other structures may have been present. We opted to only highlight the ones for which we
have reasonable evidence

We are not sure if this mathematical shift occurred during the problem solving
session or some time after. Consequently we did not list it on Table 2. The interview
data did reveal that he knew that his rectangle and the rectangle chosen by his group
would both have a perimeter of 100.
By his statements in the retrospective interview, we infer that he did not know that
his 30 by 20 rectangle had a greater area than the 40 by 10 rectangle chosen by his
group. He believed his solution and the solution chosen by the group were equally
likely to be correct. However, he was reluctant for the group to choose his solution,
for fear of backlash.
Interviewer: So what made you crumple it up?
Will: . . .I was just thinking not to use it anymore, just use [Ghee’s], just
saying, we don’t need it anymore so we just tossed it away.
Interviewer: How did that make you feel?
Will: . . .If they had chosen my wrong one, and the right one they tossed it
away, they might’d get mad at me.
Interviewer: Why did you take it back out?
Will: Cause Ms. B wants it, wanted to see...
Interviewer: So how did that make you feel?
Will: That raised up my happiness back for me. Like I said, it, when they
chose [Gee’s], my happiness came down a little bit, but when she
wanted to see mine, it came up.
Will also expressed concern about arguments.
Interviewer: So where’s your level of happiness during this?
Will: It was pretty much a little bit low, but I didn’t like, saying anything,
or. . .
Interviewer: Why not?
Will: Because, it might just cause an argument in the first place.
Interviewer: And how do you feel when there’s an argument?
Will: I don’t like arguing with people, because mostly, they become more
like a fight. . .and, if it comes to a fight, you just get suspended. . .and
maybe, they just kick you out of school.
As we analyzed Will’s responses during his retrospective interview, it became clear
to us that “Stay out of Trouble was the primary structure active for Will, during most
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 81

of this session. He seemed motivated by fear of conflict with his classmates and his
actions demonstrated that (e.g. crumpling up his work and putting it in his desk).
Based upon our analysis, we suggest that Will felt that the situation could be
dangerous and potentially lead to a fight. When visiting this class 6 months later,
we learned that Will was, unfortunately, assaulted by several of his classmates, so his
fear was not unfounded.
His retrospective interview also revealed that Will felt happy when the teacher
asked him to take out the crumpled up piece of paper and explain his ideas to her. We
infer that the encouragement and support the teacher provided for him (as she asked
him to take out his crumbled up piece of paper) may have contributed to a desire to
contribute to his groups’ ideas (which we will later provide more evidence for),
possibly triggering the brief activation of “Don’t Let My Group Down”. Those same
actions could have also indicated the activation of “Get the Job Done”, simply
following the teacher’s directions by taking out the crumpled up piece of paper
and showing his solution.
He seemed to have deep respect for the teacher, often answering her when she
asked a question directly to him and doing what she asked, throughout the classroom
session. We infer that both structures may have been operating alongside each other,
with multiple motivating desires for the same action (having both the desire to
comply with the teacher and be a contributing member of his group).
Will also reported that he feels good when he is focused.
Will: I don’t want to feel no no negative way or anything like that. Just
focus of what we’re trying to do.
Interviewer: So you said you weren’t negative?
Will: (shakes his head yes.)
Interviewer: Hmmm What do you mean by that?
Will: Uh, I wasn’t thinking about any other thing. I was just trying to find
out what’s the problem.
Interviewer: Ok, and how does that make you feel?
Will: Mm, it makes me feel pretty good (smiling) because I’m more
focused than some other children, cause some of them just waiting
for something to come up, so they just stop.
He continued to say that he felt that way most of the time. Based upon the
observation video data, it seems as if his group members ignored or dismissed his
mathematical ideas. From the interview, it seems as if Will may not have perceived
this as related to his mathematical ability and/or ability to focus. For example, he
revealed in the excerpt above, that he views himself as being focused most of the
time and more focused than some of the other children in his class. Also, in the
excerpt below he said the students sometimes look up to him and ask him questions.
Interviewer: Now in that group, is there a group leader anywhere?
Will: Mmmm..I think, mostly [Dana], because she is the one mostly being
like, if I came up with an answer, she would try to figure it out to see
if it was right.
82 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

Interviewer: Ahh interesting. So, did anyone choose her as a group leader?
Will: Um no (shakes his head)
Interviewer: How did she get chosen?
Will: I don’t know. I don’t know if they wanted her to be the group leader
because, [Gee] he maybe wanna be the group leader, [Dana] maybe
wanna be the group leader, maybe even I would wanna be the group
leader (pointing to himself with both hands)
Interviewer: So do you want to be the group leader?
Will: Of course. Yeah.
Interviewer: How does that make you feel to be group leader?
Will: It makes me feel a little bit proud, because everybody would look up
to you. To ask you like questions, if this is right. . .
Interviewer: So do they ever do that? Look up to you and ask you questions?
Will: Sometimes (saying it as if he means it).
This portion of the interview provided some evidence that it is possible that “Don’t
Let My Group Down” may have briefly been active during the problem solving
session (having a conflicting desire to contribute to his group, while fearing them).
By what Will said in the excerpt above, it is evident that he had a desire to contribute
to his group and even be the leader of his group. It is possible that he did briefly
follow this desire with the action of taking out his crumpled up piece of paper and
sharing his ideas with his group members during the session, when encouraged to do
so by the teacher. This desire, reported in the interview, was not apparent, at all, from
the classroom observation. We infer that even though Will did have a desire to carry
his weight and be a contributing member of his group, his fear of getting in trouble
with the other students was stronger, during most of the session (which was indicated
by his actions).
We remain confident that “Stay Out of Trouble” was the primary structure active for
Will during this class session, even though it appeared as if a few additional engage-
ment structures were briefly active, as well. He seemed very concerned about staying
out of trouble with his fellow classmates. Will physically stayed back, and only shared
his ideas quietly and unassertively, ideas which had he been willing to share more
pointedly, might have productively changed the direction of the group’s solution.

Discussion and Conclusions

We believe that the results presented above provide a clear link between shifts in
mathematical ideas and shifts in engagement structures. In some cases, the changes
in mathematical ideas preceded the changes in engagement, and in other cases, it was
the other way around. We also document the social conditions present in the
classrooms that surrounded the shifts. We note that Shay had several mathematical
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 83

shifts, and these, coincided with shifts in engagement (see Table 1). Will, on the
other hand, created only one rectangle and was engaged primarily in “Stay Out of
Trouble”. Will may have experienced some brief instances of “Check This Out”
(when drawing his own rectangle on the piece of paper that he ultimately crumpled
up) and “Get the Job Done” and/or “Don’t Let My Group Down” (when he took the
crumbled up piece of paper out of his desk and showed his rectangle to the teacher
and group members). We believe, however, that he was primarily engaged in “Stay
Out Of Trouble”, and his desire to avoid confrontation with his peers led to much of
his mathematical stagnation, (see Table 2).
Shay spent most of his time in “Check This Out” and “Get the Job Done”. If we only
relied on classroom observations, it would seem as if “Let Me Teach You” was active
when he interacted with his group members. The retrospective interviews, however,
revealed that his motivating desire during some or all of those interactions, may be
more indicative of “Get the Job Done”, “Look How Smart I Am” and/or “Do As I Say”.
Shay felt that his group members did not take his mathematical ideas seriously,
and perceived him as all “play”. However, he did not allow this to cause him to be
deterred from solving the problem. This was not the case for Will, who was
handicapped by his perception of his peers (and it would seem that this was
appropriate and adaptive, given the conditions present).
Both students seemed to have a deep respect for the teacher and responded
positively to her when she asked them questions. It is unfortunate that at the time
of the problem solving session, the teacher did not realize how unsafe Will felt. (She
became aware of this after his interview.)
We believe that by examining the role that engagement plays in mathematical
shifts, and vice versa, researchers and educators can better understand how to help
students who are affectively, socially or cognitively compromised, as well as
enhance the experience for others. Encouraging Will to share his ideas may have
been helpful, but it certainly was not a longer-term fix. Students in “Stay out of
Trouble” need to be safe, intellectually, socially, and physically before they can
solve and share ideas with ease.
We also believe that connecting engagement (via the use of engagement structures)
and mathematical breakthroughs is helpful in understanding the idiosyncrasies that
occur during group problem solving. For instance, breakthroughs can coincide with a
need to work alone and take the time to develop an idea more thoroughly before
sharing with others. Moreover, there are times when a student’s knowledge can deepen
by stopping to listen to another group’s strategy and times when this might take a
student away from his/her own way of thinking and confuse him/her more.
Aside from the within student differences experienced by Will and Shay, these
case studies provide an example of how, within the same classroom, students can
have very different engagement and mathematical experiences. These differences are
critical to consider as students solve problems that are cognitively complex, require
the development and evolution of mathematical models, and involve complex
interactions with peers.
84 L. B. Warner and R. Y. Schorr

References

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
English, L.D., Bergman Arleback J., & Mousoulides, N. (2016). Reflections on progress in
mathematical modelling research. The second handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education: The journey continues pp. 383–413.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543074001059.
Goldin, G. A. (2017). Motivating desires for classroom engagement in the learning of mathematics.
In C. Andrà, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson, & P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in maths
classrooms (pp. 219–229). New York: Springer.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement
structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM – International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 43, 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2011). Beliefs and strategies of identity in mathematical learning. In
Roesken, B. & Casper, M. (Eds.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVII:
Proceedings of the MAVI-18 conference, September 2012, Helsinki, Finland (pp. 74–84).
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2017). Appraising emotion in mathematical knowledge: Reflections on
methodology. In U. Xolocotzin (Ed.), Understanding emotions in mathematical thinking and
learning (pp. 43–73). London: University of East Anglia.
Lesh, R., English, L. D., Sevis, S., & Riggs, C. (2013). Modeling as a means for making powerful
ideas accessible to children at an early age. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc
vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics (pp. 419–436).
New York: Springer.
Middleton, J. A., & Jansen, A. (2011). Motivation matters, and interest counts: Fostering engage-
ment in mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Middleton, J. A., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. E. (2016). Motivation in Springer open Attitudes, beliefs,
motivation and identity in math education: An overview of the field and future directions, ICME
13, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 17–26.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement:
Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathe-
matics education (pp. 667–699). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sanchez Leal, L., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2013). Being challenged in an urban classroom: A
case study documenting the engagement of a young male who wanted to “look smart”. Journal
of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research (JULTR), 9, 78–88.
Schorr, R. Y., & Koellner Clark, K. (2003). Using a modeling approach to consider the ways in
which teachers consider new ways in which to teach mathematics. Journal of Mathematical
Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 5(2), 191–210.
Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach to providing teacher development. In
R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on
teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 141–157). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schorr, R. Y., Epstein, Y. M., Warner, L. B., & Arias, C. C. (2010a). Chapter 27: Don’t disrespect
me: Affect in an urban math class. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford
(Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 313–325).
New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1_27.
Chapter 4: Engagement Structures and the Development of Mathematical Ideas 85

Schorr, R. Y., Epstein, Y. M., Warner, L. B., & Arias, C. C. (2010b). Mathematical truth and social
consequences: The intersection of affect and cognition in a middle school classroom. Mediter-
ranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 107–134.
Warner, L. B., Schorr, R.Y., & Goldin, G. A. (2018). Analyzing prospective teachers’ motivating
desires during mathematical problem solving. In L. Gomez Chovam, A. Lopez Martino, & I.
Candel Torres (Ed.), ICERI2018 Proceedings (pp. 10436–10441). IATED Academy. ISBN
978-84-09-05948-5.
Yakov M. Epstein, Roberta Y Schorr, Gerald Goldin, Lisa B. Warner, Cecilia C. Arias, Lina
Sanchez-Leal, Margie Dunn & Tom Cain (2007). Studying the affective/social dimension of an
inner-city mathematics class. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North
American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Lake Tahoe, NV, pp. 649–656.
Part II
The What and the Why of Modeling

Alan H. Schoenfeld

Abstract I begin with reflections on the meanings and purposes of mathematical

modeling. Central concerns are what it means to engage meaningfully in mathemat-
ical modeling and why some kinds of mathematical models – the ones that are
explanatory in nature – are preferable for educational research to the kinds of
taxonomic or statistical models that describe components of a system but fail to
say how they work. I then turn to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU)
Framework, which highlights five essential dimensions of classroom practice. A key
dimension of TRU, “Agency, Ownership, and Identity,” asks what opportunities
students have to develop the sense that they are willing to and capable of engaging
with the content (agency), to make the content their own, above and beyond
“ingesting” content defined by others (ownership), and see themselves as “math
people” (identity). This dimension in particular provides a way of re-examining
issues of affect. The balance of the chapter is devoted to using the TRU framework to
examine and in some cases reframe the inquiries into affect and modeling found in
the chapters by Goldin, Gómez-Chacón and De La Fuente, Weizel, Middleton and
Jansen, and Shahbari, Tabach, and Heyd-Meyzuyamim.

Keywords Modeling · Affect · Teaching for robust understanding · TRU

framework · Agency, ownership and identity

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the papers in Part II, because they
provoked me to reflect on the nature of the modeling enterprise, at least as I practice
it. There are, of course, multiple uses. As a researcher, I find modeling to be an
essential part of my toolkit. If I’m to make claims about the nature of people’s
thinking and learning, I need mechanisms for making and justifying those claims. As

A. H. Schoenfeld (*)
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
e-mail: alans@berkeley.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 89

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_6
90 A. H. Schoenfeld

someone who wants to help students engage meaningfully in mathematics,1 I find

(as some of the authors suggest) that modeling tasks can be useful tools. The
question, if we want to be general and useful, is just what about such tasks makes
them good tools.
Let me expand on these two themes. First, the modeling enterprise. As I wrote in
How we Think (Schoenfeld 2010), I suffered from the loss of certainty when I left
pure mathematics for mathematics education. In mathematics, a proof is a proof is a
proof: there is an if-then form of certainty. But even in mathematics, there are
different kinds of proofs. Some (typically, for example, proofs by contradiction)
show that: but others show how and why. For me, proofs of the latter type are
desirable. In the physical and social sciences, there are no proofs; but, there are
models. As in the case of mathematics, I look for models that help me understand
why things happen the way they do. That means, for example, that I don’t find
statistical models useful in explanatory terms, even if correlations may suggest a
relationship or document that a relationship is strong. I want to know (as best as one
can) how things work.
This means that I find some things less useful than others. For one thing, I find
knowledge taxonomies not to be terribly helpful. To give a particular example, I do
find that the idea of pedagogical concept knowledge (called PCK, due to Shulman
1986, 1987) is useful. What I find useful about it is that Shulman identified a kind of
knowledge that plays a fundamental role in how teachers act in the classroom – and,
that we need to pay attention to. It means, in practical terms, that content knowledge
is not enough: those who think that one can improve teaching by focusing profes-
sional development on content knowledge are missing a big part of what constitutes
expert teaching. That is part of the beauty of Ma (1999), Knowing and teaching
elementary mathematics: while expert teachers may have a small part of the content
knowledge regarding fractions that Ph.D. mathematicians do, the mathematicians
lack a significant part of the pedagogical content knowledge possessed by those
teachers. Questions of how PCK develop, and what one can do to assist in the
development of relevant PCK, are useful and important.
I feel differently about taxonomic questions regarding what kinds of knowledge
there are – PCK, CK, SMK, etc. Pretty pictures may denote the various kinds of
knowledge – but to what end? Unless you can indicate that different kinds of
knowledge are accessed differently (and I think it’s unlikely that CK and SMK
reside in different parts of the brain and get accessed in different ways), then what’s
the point? The same is the case with taxonomic differences between, say, the
affective and cognitive domains – the heart, for example, of Bloom’s taxonomy
(Bloom 1956; Krathwohl et al. 1964). If the key question of interest is “how and why
do people act the ways they do when engaging mathematically”?, the separation of
cognitive and affective does little good. What matters is what people are trying to
achieve, and what they take to be take to be true, and useful in pursuing their goals.

1
Isn’t there a decent term for this? “Mathophilic pedagogue” doesn’t exactly do it.
The What and the Why of Modeling 91

This has serious consequences for understanding what people do. If a student
thinks that (a + b)2 ¼ a2 + b2, that misunderstanding is part of that student’s cognitive
reality, and we’d better be aware of it if we are to understand how the student acts
mathematically. Similarly, if a student’s experience has been that homework assign-
ments can be solved quickly if one understands the relevant methods, he or she is
likely to develop the understanding that “all problems can be solved in five minutes
or less.” By the mid-1980s, I referred to such understandings as students’ “belief
systems”; I argued (Schoenfeld 1985) that what students took to be true, both with
regard to mathematical knowledge and with regard to the nature of mathematics and
their engagement with it, were fundamental determinants of the students’ success or
failure in mathematical problem solving. Again, to be explicit: taxonomic differ-
ences between the affective and the cognitive domain serve little purpose when one
is trying to explain human behavior.
I developed belief systems as an early attempt to explain what mattered in
thinking and problem solving. It took another 25 years before I was able to put
things together more generally, in How we Think (Schoenfeld 2010). Again, the key
idea in trying to understand (preferably, to model) someone’s behavior is to see the
world from their point of view. What are they trying to achieve? That’s the issue of
goals. What resources (including knowledge, but also tools, etc.) do they have at
their disposal? (Note that the resources include what they take to be true, not
necessarily what is true.) And, what orientations (including beliefs, values, biases,
dispositions, preferences, and tastes) shape their behavior? Behavior that seems
irrational (or at least counterfactual or non-intuitive) from the outside may be the
result of a coherent and internally consistent calculus, once it is seen (well, modeled)
from the inside. For example, the student who spent more than 5 min carefully
making a straightedge and compass construction that copied a geometric figure
given in a problem statement would seem, from the outside, to be wasting a
substantial amount of time. That’s if one assumes that her primary goal was to
solve the given problem. But what if she thought she wouldn’t be able to solve it?
Then, avoiding full engagement with the problem, while doing a construction, met
multiple goals. It showed that she knew geometric constructions, demonstrating
some knowledge to the person who posed the problem. It allowed her to avoid direct
engagement with the problem, so she could avoid failure: “I didn’t try, so I didn’t
really fail.” And it bought her some time, in case inspiration might strike. In sum,
from an internal point of view, that behavior was quite reasonable.2
My first point, then, is that if you want your research to make a real difference in
practice, it is essential to view (and model) the world from the student’s point of
view. To be sure, there exists important fundamental research that does not make
direct contributions to practice, as there is practical work whose contributions to the
knowledge base are minimal. My personal preference, however, is to work on
problems that sit squarely in “Pasteur’s Quadrant” (Stokes 1997) – “use-inspired
basic research.”

2
The student became my research assistant, and she later told me what I have discussed here.
92 A. H. Schoenfeld

This leads to my second point, which focuses on how we can think productively
about learning environments. The key question about learning environments should
be, “what does the learning experience look and feel like, from the learner’s point of
view?”
The challenge I have been working on for the past decade has been to find an
“actionable” description of what matters in classrooms, as experienced by students.
The key question driving the work was: “is it possible to identify a comparatively
small number of dimensions of learning environments with the property that when
instruction goes well along those dimensions, the students who emerge from those
environments are knowledgeable and resourceful thinkers and problem solvers? The
result of this work is the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework
(Schoenfeld 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018). Documents relating to TRU and tools for
enhancing classroom environments can be found at the TRU Framework web site
https://truframework.org/ and the Mathematics Assessment Project web site http://
map.mathshell.org/.
The key idea is that the following five dimensions are central to teaching for
robust understanding:
1. The content – what opportunities do students have to engage with the key ideas
and practices of the domain?
2. Cognitive Demand – what opportunities do students have for “productive strug-
gle” and sense-making?
3. Equitable access – what opportunities does every student have to engage with
central content and practices?
4. Agency, ownership, and identity – what opportunities do students have to
develop the sense that they are willing and capable of engaging with the content
(agency), that they can make the content their own, above and beyond “ingesting”
content defined by others (ownership), and that they can see themselves as “math
people” (identity)?
5. Formative assessment – the degree to which student thinking is made public, so
instruction can respond in ways that support and enrich dimensions 1 through 4.
In brief: if a classroom does well along all five dimensions, the students in it will
become knowledgeable and resourceful thinkers and problem solvers. If there are
significant challenges along any of the dimensions, they will not. Note that although
the content (Dimension 1) is centrally important, four of the five TRU dimensions
center on how students experience that content.
This background, and my biases toward work that resides in Pasteur’s Quadrant,
shape my responses to the papers in this section of the volume. My intention is to
(very briefly) highlight the relationships between the papers and both kinds of
modeling (modeling as a curriculum activity, and modeling as a research activity),
with an eye toward the kind of “use-inspired basic research” highlighted by
Stokes (1997).
While I appreciate the heritage and substance of Goldin’s work on the conative
perspective, the first part of his chapter sits squarely within the taxonomic tradition
and is thus somewhat problematic for me. What does it mean for conation to interact
The What and the Why of Modeling 93

with affect and cognition? As discussed earlier in this response, I was driven to build
the notion of belief systems precisely because affect and cognition weren’t separate
entities that interacted. The whole idea was to explain what people saw, what people
felt, what people did. Ultimately, the goal was to build models that provided
explanations, at a level of mechanism, of how and why people did what they did
in problematic situations. The models I built in How we Think (Schoenfeld 2010)
spanned problem solving, teaching, and medical decision making. Conation was not
formally labeled, but the notion of orientations includes including beliefs, values,
biases, dispositions, preferences, and tastes. Moreover, it includes them operation-
ally, as part of a model: in a particular context, with a person with a particular
constellation of Resources, Orientations, and Goals is likely to behave in certain
ways.3 Thus, conation is built into the model, in operational form. Unless I’m
missing something, this operationalizes and supersedes the aspects of modeling in
the second part of Goldin’s chapter. Finally, although it would take far more
unpacking than is possible here, the idea behind the TRU framework is to address
the needs highlighted in the chapter. For example, a challenge within the TRU
framework is to build learning environments that provide students with opportunities
to develop a sense of personal and disciplinary agency, a sense that they participated
in the creation of their own knowledge, and thus have ownership of it; and a positive
disciplinary identity. As Goldin notes, these are inherently social activities. That
means that productive learning environments need to attend to such issues. For tools
that help support teachers in doing so, see Baldinger, Louie, and the Algebra
Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project 2016, and Schoenfeld and
the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project 2016.
Gomez-Chacon and De la Fuente raise a series of interesting modeling-related
and epistemological issues. Their literature review is terse and to the point, highlight-
ing many of the limitations of earlier views. My only caution is terminological: the
philosophical overtones of the word “epistemology” are problematic in the educa-
tional realm. Philosophers are hung up on strict definitions of notions such as
“knowledge,” which is typically characterized as “justified true belief.” On its
own, that raises interesting dilemmas, which I will only hint at: what was the
epistemological status of the Jordan Curve Theorem when the entire mathematical
community believed an incorrect proof of it?4 But, the key point of understanding
human behavior is that what really matters is what the individual takes to be true,
whether or not it actually is. One has to be careful to recognize that personal
epistemology is not simply about truth and what can be verified. I am happy that
the authors are clear about this:

3
To be precise, the model can produce a probability distribution of likely responses. But even
without that, the operationalization of decision making is explanatory in nature.
4
The error was found, as well as a correct proof. But the point is we can only rely on fallible human
judgment to assess the “truth” of very complex mathematical ideas. So, what is “justified true
belief?”
94 A. H. Schoenfeld

We consider that the concept of personal epistemology allows relating the creation of
subjective and objective knowledge in mathematics. The way in which the individual acts
to develop his structures of thought. Moreover, with regard to the teacher, the manner in
which they act to favour the mathematical thinking structures of their students. This suggests
that the contexts of “discovery” (creation) and justification cannot be completely separated,
since justifications, like proofs, are the product of human creativity as concepts, conjectures
and theories. (manuscript page 18.)

My friendly expansion to the paper is to be explicit about the meta-level implications

of their findings. The mathematical task discussed in the paper is interesting.
Importantly, the task embodies an important aspect of mathematical modeling:
there is not one “right answer.” As the authors note, the teacher FC’s view of
mathematics changed: his perception of knowledge moves from “something static
to something that is constantly changing.” I agree, and I also see a change in the rules
of the game. In pure mathematics, certainty is a goal. One writes proofs; one solves
problems and gets “the” answer. The meta-level rules of the game that one develops
are consistent with this. But in modelling, the idea is to be reasonable, to make sure
you’ve included all the things that matter, to decide how “close” you want to be, and
to make sure that your model is indeed within the bounds of tolerance you’d like. It’s
a very different game than pure mathematics. As such, playing it will be facilitated if
one is explicit about how the game is played. As the research indicates, beliefs and
orientations are shaped by experience – but they are shaped more effectively if one
reflects explicitly on those experiences.
One can hardly disagree with the fundamental premise in the paper by Wiezel,
Middleton, and Jansen, that more is entailed in learning mathematics than the
mastery of facts, procedures, and concepts. As but one example, addressing “math
anxiety” has been a major (and profitable!) industry for decades. As google search on
that phrase alone yields about 1,360,000 hits in less than half a second. “Math
avoidance” yields about 2,130,000 hits in under .36 s. We can go all the way back to
Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom 1956; Krathwohl et al. 1964) for documentation of the
importance of affect and, as I discussed in the opening paragraphs of this essay, their
unfortunate separation.
So happiness is important. But, if one is to consider aspects of the non-totally
cognitive, how are they to be conceptualized – especially if one is to think about
ways to enhance them in classrooms? From my obviously biased perspective, that’s
where the TRU framework comes in. Dimension 4, Agency, Ownership, and
Identity, is the most relevant here. Think about the times you’re happy, or the arenas
in which you tend to be happy. For me, yes, math is a source of pleasure; the other
day I spent some time working (at first unsuccessfully) on a problem that intrigued
me, partly because it seemed like I should be able to solve it, but I couldn’t see a
solution. When I finally did, I wasn’t yet pleased with it; I sent a note to my research
group asking how they might think about the problem. A number of solutions were
shared (along with some enthusiasm). Both the mathematics and the exchanges
about thinking about the problem (we are math educators, after all) were a source
of pleasure. But, of course, there’s more to life than math, or even math ed. What
about food, as another example? Or music, or reading and writing, or sports?
The What and the Why of Modeling 95

I’d argue that if you take pleasure in it, you have a sense of agency. I worked on
the math problem because I found it interesting and thought I could make progress
on it. I love to cook (including the times when I’m confronted with random things in
the refrigerator and have to figure out how to make a meal out of them). That love
came with the enjoyment of food (which may be wired in, but also has a social
component) but also with the fact that, after much time in the kitchen, the results
reward my efforts. And so on. In all of the things I mentioned, and whichever happen
to be sources of pleasure for you, there’s a willingness on your part to engage, with
the sense that the engagement will bring positive results. Some of those positive
results come in the form of “ownership” – what’s produced is yours. That’s not the
case when you’re working routine exercises out of a text; it’s much more likely to be
the case when you’re pursuing something of interest. And ultimately, engaging in
these ways becomes a part of you – I am a math person, I am a foodie, I am
reader, etc.
Why is “Agency, Ownership, Identity,” along with the other four dimensions of
TRU, a more useful framing than “Happiness?” Perhaps the most important reason is
that the five dimensions of TRU are actionable. If you frame a question as “how can
I arrange the learning environment so that students are happier?” it’s hard to get
traction. But if you ask, “how can I provide more opportunities for students to see
themselves as people who can do mathematics?”, things begin to open up. The math
can be made richer and more accessible; the level of cognitive demand (Dimension
2 of TRU) can be monitored in ways that support students in being successful; the
classroom environment can be arranged in ways that are safer for students, support
generating ideas, building on each other’s work, etc. (See the TRU web site, https://
truframework.org/, for relevant tools.) The same is the case for other goals. Recently,
a group of teachers I’ve been working with said that a major goal problem they’re
facing is to get their students to persevere. This framing is a challenge. What do you
do, whip them? Reward them? But if you reframe things: why do people persevere?
In part because they have a sense of agency. How do they develop it? With legitimate
success, over time. How can you make that more likely? By paying attention to the
level of cognitive demand (Dimension 2), adjusting it via formative assessment
(Dimension 5), etc. Note, by the way, that agency serves as a conceptual link
between perseverance and happiness.
Finally, we come to Shahbari, Tabach, and Heyd-Metzuyanim’s chapter, “Devel-
opment of Modelling Routines and its Relation to Identity Construction.” Here, I
note that the communicational framework (Sfard 2008), in its very framing, tears
down the wall between the affective and cognitive domains: Visual mediators and
routines may be seen as the aspects of mathematical content and practices (the
cognitive aspects of the framework), which are inseparable from the words and
narratives in which they are embedded. As the title of the chapter suggests, those
words and narratives are fundamental aspects of identity.
The paper itself describes the simultaneous evolution of both mathematical
talk and subectifying talk – an indication of how content learning and identity
development are intertwined. This points to the utility of dialogic analysis
as a tool for unpacking aspects of the development of identity. And, as the authors
96 A. H. Schoenfeld

note, modeling activities elicit subjectifying activity, affording a personal “way in”
to the mathematics that is not provided by more common classroom activities –
especially if those activities are of the traditional “show and practice” form (Lappan
and Philips 2009).
That brings us back to the second part of this article’s title, concerning the why of
modeling. I have always conceived of mathematics as a sense making activity; it is a
matter of personal dogma that every bit of formal mathematics, K-14, can and should
be experienced as the codification of sense making activities. Whether it’s counting
objects you care about in elementary school or trying to sort out the complexities of
the Summer Camp activity or the Good Teacher activity, trying to make sense of
something that can be profitably mathematized is a great starting point for both
building mathematical ideas and, deeply intertwined, building a mathematical iden-
tity. I say “starting point” because there is much more. We need to unpack the
pedagogies that support such activities – every time I read a paper about powerful
learning that took place in a classroom, I wonder about how the context and norms
were established that supported that learning – and to think about the kinds of
curricular and pedagogical design that would enable more classroom activities to
provide the opportunities for individual and collective sense making afforded by the
best modeling tasks.

References

Baldinger, E., Louie, N., & the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project.
(2016). TRU conversation guide: A tool for teacher learning and growth. Berkeley/Lansing:
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley/College of Education, Mich-
igan State University. Retrieved from: https://truframework.org/tools and/or http://map.
mathshell.org/materials/pd.php.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain.
New York: McKay.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David
McKay.
Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009). Challenges in US mathematics education through a curriculum
developer lens. Educational Designer, 1(3). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/
issue3/article11/index.htm.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its
educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM, The International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014, November). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we
support teachers in creating them? Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0013189X1455.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Thoughts on scale. ZDM, The international journal of mathematics
education, 47, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0662-3.
The What and the Why of Modeling 97

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: The teaching
for robust understanding (TRU) framework. In C. Y. Charalambous & A.-K. Praetorius (Eds.),
Studying instructional quality in mathematics through different lenses: In search of common
ground (An issue of ZDM). Manuscript available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). The teaching for robust
understanding (TRU) observation guide: A tool for teachers, coaches, administrators, and
professional learning communities. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of
California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://truframework.org/tools or http://map.mathshell.org.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and
mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 57, 1–22.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technical innovation. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
Engaging Students in Mathematical
Modeling: Themes and Issues

Peter Kloosterman

Abstract This commentary begins with a brief synopsis of each of the four very
different chapters in Part II. It follows with discussion of five themes related to affect
and mathematical modeling that cut across the chapters: social engagement, short-
term vs. long-term engagement, the importance of context, the development of
theory, and the extent to which the claims made in the chapters are specific to
modeling as opposed to mathematics teaching in general. The commentary ends with
key insights for researchers and practitioners. These include the novel ways in which
the chapters address affect, the implications of the theoretical models and conceptual
frameworks presented in the chapters, and the directions for additional research that
can be derived from the questions raised in the chapters.

Keywords Affect · Beliefs · Context · Emotion · Engagement · Mathematics ·

Models · Theory

Over the last 30 years, the study of affective factors in the learning of mathematics
has evolved. The First Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning (Grouws 1992), for example, included two chapters that focused primarily
on affective factors: one of those chapters was specific to research on teachers’
beliefs (Thompson 1992) and the other was specific to student affect (McLeod
1992). The remainder of the First Handbook focused on cognitive, instructional,
and assessment issues with relatively minimal attention to affect. The Second
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Lester 2007)
included a chapter on teachers’ beliefs and affect (Philipp 2007) but student affect,
to the extent that it was covered, was addressed only in chapters focused on learning
of specific mathematics topics. For example, in their chapter on problem solving and
modeling, Lesh and Zawojeski (2007) included a relatively brief section on student
beliefs and dispositions. Other affective issues were not specifically addressed by

P. Kloosterman (*)
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
e-mail: klooster@indiana.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 99

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_7
100 P. Kloosterman

Lesh and Zawojewski although some of the other topics they covered, including
habits of mind, flow experiences, and communities of practice, have affective
components.
Most recently, the Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (Cai
2017) includes 11 chapters in a section titled “Students, Teachers, and Learning
Environments.” Although not specific to affect, the chapters deal with non-cognitive
issues including race, gender, language, identity, classroom discourse, and profes-
sional development. The only chapter dealing specifically with affect, written by
Middleton et al. (2017) and titled “The Complexities of Mathematical Engagement:
Motivation, Affect, and Social Interactions,” argues that affect is an important aspect
of student engagement with mathematics and that, as researchers, we need to
continually consider engagement as we study learning. Because student engagement
is an explicit or implicit affect-related theme in each of the four chapters in Part II, I
have selected engagement as the primary lens to discuss those chapters.

Affect and Engagement in the Four Chapters

The four chapters in Part II represent a diverse set of perspectives on affect and
mathematical modeling. I begin by summarizing the key concepts in each chapter in
relation to student engagement. These comments are followed with commentary on
themes that appear across the chapters.

The Conative Perspective (Goldin)

Engagement in learning is typically viewed as having both cognitive and affective

components. Goldin argues that a third component, called “conation,” interacts with
and to some extent overrides cognition and affect when trying to understand
engagement and motivation in mathematics. According to Goldin, conation “refers
to the dimension (or domain) of human needs and drives, desires and goals, choices,
intentionality, and ‘will’–that is, the ‘why’ behind human behavior” (p. 2). Goldin
sees emotions such as anxiety and satisfaction as different conative sensations of
need and desire and argues that good mathematics instruction motivates student
learning in mathematics by fulfilling basic needs such as social involvement in
classroom environments and moving toward career goals. Learning mathematics
can also help meet the human goal of belonging to a community of individuals who
communicate using mathematics, and the need for understanding in general.
In addition to providing a number of examples of the basic needs that learning
mathematics fulfills, Goldin outlines the components of a preliminary model for
mathematics instruction that takes into account conation. The model focuses on
keeping the perspective of students’ needs and personality traits in mind when
teaching mathematics. Although the chapter does not explicitly address the use of
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling: Themes and Issues 101

mathematical models as an aspect of mathematics learning, learning to use models is

an implicit aspect of quantitative thinking (the cognitive dimension) and building
useful models can promote good feelings (the affective dimension). In addition,
successful mathematical modeling promotes engagement and helps to meet personal
desires for knowledge and success (the conative dimension).

Mathematics Teaching and Personal Epistemology (Gómez-

Chacón and De la Fuente)

In stark contrast to the Goldin chapter, which looks at student engagement from the
perspective of basic human needs, the Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente chapter
focuses on teacher decision-making from the perspective of personal epistemology.
More specifically, it focuses on why research in mathematics education should
include study of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of mathematical knowledge and
beliefs about what should be done to help students learn mathematics. The chapter
includes data and findings from a study of a high school instructor using a single
mathematical modeling task with a class of 17-year old students.
A major tenet of the instructor’s epistemology is that analogies can be very
helpful in guiding students toward potential solution paths and thus he uses analo-
gies to help students understand and complete the modeling task. In essence,
analogies are ways of making connections between what the student knows and
what she or he needs to figure out to complete a mathematics task. Two types of
analogies are described, (a) analogy to existing knowledge of mathematics concepts
and solution processes, and (b) analogy between two mathematical concepts or
processes. Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente propose a model of how the instructor’s
epistemology impacts his decision making as he uses analogies to help students
understand and propose a solution for the modeling task. Although the model is
based on data from one teacher in one setting, it provides a sense of how instructors
in other settings might base their instructional decisions on their own epistemol-
ogies. Student engagement, while not a specific focus, is key to the success of
instruction based on the model.

Happiness and Mathematics (Wiezel, Middleton, and Jansen)

Wiezel, Middleton, and Jansen begin with a premise that readers of this volume will
likely agree with–factors beyond achievement need to be considered when
102 P. Kloosterman

documenting success in mathematics. With this supposition in mind, they argue that
the construct of student happiness when learning and doing mathematics is a key to
student engagement and should be receiving more attention by teachers and
researchers than is currently the case. Wiezel et al. state that “In an education
sense . . . to be happy is to learn and grow in one or more domains. . ., to experience
pleasure while learning, and to reflect with satisfaction upon one’s long term
educational experiences” (p. 5). They credit Seligman et al. (2009) when they
identify three components of happiness: engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure.
They are quick to point out that that not all mathematical experiences are going to be
meaningful or pleasant but overall, making mathematics enjoyable enough that
students are willing to learn the mathematics they need to have a productive and
fulfilled life should be an instructional goal.
Although Wiezel et al. do not go back to human needs in the way that Goldin
does, one could argue that engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure are in fact
human needs and thus it makes sense that being happy while doing mathematics is
desirable regardless of whether it is essential for learning. Like the first two chapters
in this section, Wiezel et al. provide a conceptual model–in this case a model of
happiness based on engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure. As is the case in
Goldin’s chapter, Wiezel et al.’s chapter is not very specific to mathematical
modeling but given that challenging content such as mathematical modeling often
brings out emotions in students, the claims made in the chapter are clearly relevant to
the modeling aspect of the mathematics domain.

Modeling Routines and Identity (Shahbari, Tabach, and Heyd-

Metzuyanim)

The chapter by Shahbari, Tabach, and Heyd-Metzuyanim analyzes the types of

problem-solving routines and the identity-related comments made by five preservice
mathematics teachers when working together on two Model Eliciting Activities
(MEAs). As explained by Lesh and Zawojewski (2007), MEAs are activities
where the goal is to develop and use a mathematical problem-solving process
more so than to find an answer to a single problem. Using Sfard’s (2007)
commognitive framework, Shahbari et al. found that the group’s routines
(problem-solving methods) became more systematic the longer they worked and
that the initial comments that group members made about their own experiences (i.e.,
identity comments) gave way to comments more focused on the mathematics as they
worked through the MEAs. In contrast to the other three chapters where affect-
related constructs were treated as important considerations in planning mathematics
instruction, affect appears in this chapter only as an outcome–the identity-focused
comments made while preservice teachers worked on the MEAs. The chapter over-
laps somewhat with the Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente chapter in the sense that
identity can rest in part on personal epistemology and thus students’ decisions on
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling: Themes and Issues 103

how to proceed when solving a mathematics problem are based on personal expe-
riences, at least until they fully analyze the mathematical complexities of the
problem. MEAs are intended to teach modeling and like some of the research
involving MEAs, the focus in this chapter is on what took place when students
completed MEAs with little explicit discussion of how the research findings apply to
other aspects of doing mathematics. In contrast to the other three chapters, explicit
models of thinking are not proposed.

Themes and Issues

Social Engagement

All four of the chapters in Part II involve social engagement in that they deal
specifically with interactions among students and between students and their
teachers. Goldin argues that “most, but not all motivating desires are overtly social,
in that they relate mainly to having or avoiding particular kinds of social interac-
tions” (p. 12). Desires that fall into this category include “Look how smart I am,”
“Focus on me,” “Don’t disrespect me,” and “Help me” (p. 12). Social interaction is
key to satisfying all of these needs. The Wiezel et al. chapter is also specific about
social engagement, arguing that it needs to be considered along with the three
traditional aspects of engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and affective. Given that
interaction is key to effective instruction in mathematical modeling, there is a strong
case for considering social engagement in such instruction. Wiezel et al. argue that
the four different forms of engagement are related in all mathematics instruction,
including instruction in modeling where, for example, deciding on a process for
solving some types of problem (cognitive engagement) is usually based on the input
the modelers get from a teacher or peers (social engagement).
The other two chapters do not explicitly mention social engagement although it is
key to the perspectives on teaching and learning in the chapters. Gómez-Chacón and
De la Fuente’s emphasis on a teacher’s epistemology assumes social engagement as
a key aspect of the decision making during a modeling activity and their data support
this assumption. Shahbari et al.’s focus on identity construction, and their findings
about the impact of students’ identities on the processes they used when developing
mathematical models also clearly involve social engagement. In short, all four
chapters describe the importance of productive social engagement patterns in math-
ematics learning and the data reported in the chapters support such engagement.

“In-the-Moment” vs. “Long-Term” Engagement

With respect to mathematical modeling, “In-the-Moment” engagement is normally

thought of as a student’s interest and engagement when working on a specific task as
104 P. Kloosterman

compared to longer-term feelings and engagement about mathematical problem

solving or mathematics in general. Goldin and Wiezel et al. are more explicit
about in-the-moment engagement than Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente or Shahbari
et al., but all four chapters focus on ways to get students engaged in mathematics and
modeling in the short term with the expectation that short-term success and the
positive affect connected with that success leads to appreciation for and engagement
in mathematics over periods of months and years. Goldin stresses the importance of
short-term success with his comment that “in-the-moment engagement is highly
malleable in a way that students’ motivational traits are not” (p. 8). Wiezel et al.
provide a compatible perspective with the comment that “we can think about
pleasure in the context of mathematics as not just an in-the-moment emotional
response to the conditions of learning, but as meta-affect that stabilizes the students’
momentary frustrations and triumphs” (p. 14). Wiezel et al. go on to argue that over
time, predominantly pleasurable experiences in mathematics increase the odds that
students will be engaged and thus successful in the subject.
In-the-moment engagement is not specifically addressed by Gómez-Chacón and
De la Fuente or Shahbari et al. although both focus on student success in solving
specific problems with the expectation that students who are engaged in the short
term are becoming more confident problem solvers. The Gómez-Chacón and De la
Fuente chapter keys on the notion that analogy is an effective tool for engaging
students in specific tasks. Shahbari et al. found that subjectifying talk (relating
mathematics problems to personal experience) supported short-term student engage-
ment by relating problems to non-school experiences. In short, all four chapters
support the premise that in-the-moment engagement in modeling tasks is important
and over time, such engagement improves long-term affect and performance in
mathematical modeling.

Context and Generalizability of Results

None of the four chapters address the issue of generalizability of their work and
while generalization is often not addressed in qualitative research, the question of the
extent to which the claims made in the chapters apply to populations or settings
beyond those used for studies is important. The Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente
chapter describes research on the decision making of one teacher in a Spanish high
school mathematics class. The description of how the teacher builds and uses
analogy is likely to be of interest to researchers with interest in different methods
of teaching modeling at the high school level. The chapter describes the teacher’s
self-reported epistemic beliefs and the relationship between those beliefs and deci-
sions the teacher makes in designing and implementing the instruction. Gómez-
Chacón and De la Fuente do not comment on whether anything beyond belief in
analogy as an instructional tool may have impacted the teacher’s actions but that
would be an interesting topic to explore as teachers’ decision are often based on a
multitude of competing goals and options. In particular, it would be interesting to
look at the effectiveness of analogy with students of various ages and the extent to
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling: Themes and Issues 105

which students become better over an extended period of time at using analogy to
help mathematize situations. Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente provide evidence that
epistemic beliefs are related to what a teacher does in the classroom although this is
not necessarily new information (see Philipp 2007).
Like Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente, Shahbari et al. focus on what happened
with a single group of students in a short-term study. In contrast to Gómez-Chacón
and De la Fuente, Shahbari et al. focus on the students rather than the instructor and
leave open the question of the extent to which the comments made by the instructor
impacted the statements made by students as they worked through the two MEAs.
As is common in research involving MEAs, it appears that the students were left
alone to complete the tasks and thus the instructor may not have been a significant
factor in the way the students proceeded. However, if the instructor spent class time
discussing the first MEA before students started on the second–a practice that is
common in the classroom but not typically part of studies involving MEAs–the
instructor could have been a significant influence on the types of statements students
made and thus impacted how students’ roles outside of school impacted their
thinking (a key theme in the chapter). A broader question with respect to the findings
of Shahbari et al. is the extent to which the backgrounds of the five prospective
teachers in the study impacted the findings. Readers are not told very much about the
five individuals although it is clear from the comments that at least a couple of them
were parents, they had a common understanding of what happens at a summer camp
(one of the MEAs was about a camp), and while they were expected to take the role
of a school principal for the MEA that focused on how a principal selects new
teachers, they did not clearly do that. In short, the question remains of which aspects
of the participants’ backgrounds impacted how they made decisions. Related ques-
tions include whether (a) the mathematical talk of secondary students who have less
varied backgrounds than the participants of this study would become more system-
atic as they worked through an MEA, and (b) the findings of this study have
implications for how we prepare teachers. Had Shahbari et al. provided more
background information on the participants and context of the study, speculating
on these issues would be easier. Again, generalizability is not typically addressed in
qualitative research using MEAs, although it is important to consider if one assumes
that MEA-based research is going to have impact on how we teach students to
develop and use mathematical models.
Because the Goldin and Wiezel et al. chapters are strictly conceptual, the issue of
when and where the theories in the chapters apply is at least as important as in the
data-based chapters. The Wiezel et al. chapter includes what appears to be a
hypothetical analysis of two women as they worked their way through high school
and college. In the Goldin chapter, the age of the students who made the conative
statements reported in the chapter is not specified but the statements are typical of
middle and secondary school students. It is not clear whether either chapter is
intended to apply to students or classrooms at the elementary level although students
at that level clearly have feelings about mathematics. The two students described by
Wiezel et al. were both high achievers. It would be interesting to know the extent to
106 P. Kloosterman

which the authors of any of the chapters feel that the claims made in their chapters
apply to students across the performance spectrum.
In short, it is important to keep in mind that context, which includes background
and experience of students, is an important factor in the learning of mathematics. The
nature of the mathematics tasks, the mathematical experiences of students, the
beliefs of the teacher, the classroom assessment practices, and the out-of-school
experiences of students are among the multitude of factors that impact what students
think and feel about mathematics. It is not, obviously, possible to consider all of
these factors in research on mathematics teaching and learning but reporting on as
many contextual factors as possible in a study makes interpreting the results easier.

Development of Theory

Theory development is the primary focus of the Goldin and Wiezel et al. chapters
and is an implicit focus of the other two chapters. Goldin’s six-factor preliminary
model for using the conative (human needs) perspective to improve engagement and
motivation in mathematics leads to important research directions in the area of
mathematical engagement. One such direction involves understanding engagement
structures, which include “characteristic patterns occurring in mathematics class-
rooms” (p. 8). There is currently a lot of interest in research on classroom norms,
discourse, and the notion of making classrooms into learning communities (e.g.,
Cobb et al. 2017). What would we find if such research was approached from the
Goldin’s conative perspective? Are there reasons why the conative perspective,
which is better known among psychologists than among mathematics educators,
has rarely been applied to mathematics learning? Wiezel et al. focus on engagement
as a linear combination of four factors and define happiness as an experience that is
engaged, meaningful, and pleasant. How would this perspective impact the way we
study student engagement and success in classrooms? How would a focus on
happiness integrate with a focus on teaching modeling processes?
Shahbari et al.’s focus on modeling routines and identity development also points
the study of affect in mathematics learning in a new direction. In the chapter, we see
evidence that the focus of discussion shifts to be more systematic and less focused on
individual experience but readers are not provided with a sense of how this fits with
other research on how students work together to solve mathematic problems outside
of the MEA framework. Tying MEA-focused research to broader studies of how
groups of students solve problems (e.g., Vig et al. 2015) would deepen the theoret-
ical impact of MEA-based work. Shahbari et al. argue that personal experience is a
key factor in what students try to do in a modeling situation until they develop
routines that are specific to the problem in question. This notion makes sense
although exactly how it drives thinking and action beyond providing an anchor
point to begin discussion is not addressed.
While Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente provide the reader with background on
personal epistemology and reasoning processes, the extent to which their findings
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling: Themes and Issues 107

are compatible with research on teacher decision making (e.g., Borko et al. 2008) is
not addressed, limiting the theoretical significance of their findings. MEA-based
studies are often not connected to broader research findings, but those studies focus
on the modeling process rather than connecting modeling to psychological theories
as was done by Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente. In contrast to Goldin and Wiezel
et al., Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente do not provide a specific theoretical model
but they do show that personal beliefs about mathematics teaching impact a teacher’s
decision making in the context of building an instructional model.

Mathematical Modeling as an Aspect of “Doing Mathematics”

Given that this volume focuses on mathematical modeling, which is usually a

relatively modest part of what is normally taught or expected in school mathematics,
it is also important to think about how the nature of mathematical modeling might
impact the claims of these chapters. As explained in Kaiser (2017), the notion of
mathematical modeling dates back to the nineteenth century although it was not until
recent years that it has become a significant focus in mathematics instruction. As
noted above, the Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente chapter, and the Shahbari et al.
chapter report on studies in which students were expected to build relatively
sophisticated mathematical models. Students worked together on the models and
thus social interaction was important part of the modeling process. Affect was a
component of the analysis in the chapters, but mostly as a secondary factor in
relation to the modeling process. In the Goldin and Wiezel et al. chapters, the
affective, or at least non-cognitive, realm was the primary focus of the chapters.
An assumption in these chapters was that students would be doing mathematical
tasks that required substantial thinking, but the ideas appeared to be applicable to any
non-procedural mathematical content. None of the four chapters were explicit about
the extent to which the findings reported were more relevant to the teaching and
learning of mathematical modeling than other aspects of mathematics or relevant to
content beyond mathematics. I do not see this omission as a limitation but it is
important to keep in mind that mathematics context makes a difference–mathematics
pedagogy can vary depending on exactly what mathematics students are expected to
learn and modeling is one of many emphases in mathematics instruction in schools
today. What we learn from the Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente, and Shahbari et al.
chapters clearly applies directly to teaching modeling. The messages from the other
two chapters apply to modeling, but mostly because they apply to the teaching of
mathematics in general.
108 P. Kloosterman

What Can Be Learned from the Four Chapters in Part II?

Looking across the four chapters, one can ask the “big question” of what new
insights are provided to researchers and practitioners. To begin, the chapters all
contribute new perspectives on engagement in mathematics and mathematical
modeling. Conation is rarely discussed in the mathematics education literature as
demonstrated by the fact that it does not appear in the indexes of any of the three
major research handbooks of research in the field (Cai 2017; Grouws 1992; Lester
2007). Goldin’s chapter provides a nice introduction to those interested in looking at
mathematics learning from this perspective. Happiness is a household word but in
mathematics education the terms enjoyment and liking are much more common.
Wiezel et al. apply the psychological literature on happiness to mathematics educa-
tion and thus bring that view to the field. While epistemological beliefs have been
considered in mathematics education research, Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente
connect epistemology with teaching through analogy and this is unique. And, while
MEA-based research is common, studying modelling routines and personal identity
in the context of MEAs also appears to be a first. But, what else can be said?
Beginning with conation, Goldin notes that, “The fundamental challenge to
mathematics educators . . . is to relate the learning of mathematics in a deep way to
fundamental human needs as they manifest themselves in the personalities of
learners” (p. 7). Teachers seldom think in terms of fundamental needs so, while it
is hard to argue with this claim, the key question is whether thinking in terms of
conation helps them to better meet such needs. There appears to be little research on
this issue but it is an empirical question and Goldin provides thoughts on how to
begin study in this area. Education, in any form, should help to meet needs for
competence and self-actualization so understanding whether there are advantages to
thinking about learning and engagement in relation to conation rather than just the
traditional realms of affect and cognition is an area where research could be very
helpful.
The Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente chapter reviews personal epistemology,
epistemic reasoning, and analogy as a tool. All of these topics are reviewed in the
context of building traditional mathematical models (i.e., mathematizing a complex
problem situation) and thus the chapter integrates topics that are not usually consid-
ered together. Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente indicate that their focus on analogy
comes from Polya’s third book that grew out of his problem-solving heuristic of
looking at the solution to a related problem. Polya’s work on analogy does not have
the notoriety of his four-step problem solving process and thus Gómez-Chacón and
De la Fuente bring the reader back to historically interesting ideas about problem
solving heuristics. They use the actions of the teacher in their study to help build
models of using analogy in teaching. The models are consistent with what they
report about the decisions made by the teacher during instruction although it is
sometimes a bit difficult to see exactly how the models are the result of specific
actions by the teacher. From the perspective of student engagement, it would be
ambitious but helpful to provide a better sense of the connection between the
Engaging Students in Mathematical Modeling: Themes and Issues 109

instructor’s use of analogy and the psychology of learning. In general, like many
limited-scale studies, the chapter leads to as many questions as it does answers.
With respect to the Wiezel et al. chapter, it is easy to agree with the authors’
premises that (a) success in mathematics must be more than high achievement
scores, and (b) students who are happy when engaging in mathematics are more
likely to study and use mathematics in the future and that their engagement leads to
more learning. The authors stress that students should be happy about being able to
complete challenging mathematics tasks–ability to complete procedural tasks is not
enough. This is particularly important with respect to mathematical modeling, which
needs to be much more than simply knowing which formula to use to solve a word
problem. The authors mention their ongoing large-scale study of students’ affect in
secondary mathematics classes. A key goal of the study is to build a model of
students’ sense of efficacy and well-being in relation to the mathematics instruction
they receive. It is not clear exactly how happiness fits into this work but given that
mathematical modeling is a topic that seems to have the potential to impact students’
feelings about mathematics differently than more traditional mathematics topics, it
would be interesting to get a sense of the extent to which engagement and happiness
vary as mathematics topics and assignments change over time. Given the current
emphasis on test scores in the United States, it would also be interesting to know
what parents, teachers, school administrators, and policy makers feel about efforts to
increase happiness in mathematics, with or without simultaneous emphasis on
performance.
As noted earlier, the Shahbari chapter is the only one that says very little about
theories of affect early on. The chapter introduction focuses on mathematical
modeling, especially research involving Model Eliciting Activities and Sfard’s
commognitive framework for understanding classroom communication. The frame-
work makes use of identity although the authors restrict most of their discussion of
identity to that framework rather than the broader field of identity in mathematics
(e.g., Langer-Osuna and Esmonde 2017). As sometimes occurs in MEA-based
research, and as was the case in the Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente chapter,
readers are given only limited information about how the modeling tasks in the
study were selected and whether there was anything unique to the study participants
or the classroom settings that made those tasks particularly relevant (or, as is
sometimes the case, intentionally irrelevant). The authors do a good job of showing
what parts of the data led to their findings and thus provide an example of how
research designed from the MEA perspective can be used to analyze topics that are
not normally addressed in that research tradition. As noted earlier, more could have
been done to give a sense of the extent to which the study findings have the potential
to be generalizable to similar settings.
In short, all four chapters in Part II look at affect in mathematical modeling from
new and unique perspectives. All include conceptual development of those perspec-
tives and the case can be made that the type of engagement described in the four
chapters should be a goal for all mathematics instruction. Paralleling what we see in
the mathematics education field as a whole, there is no consensus in the chapters on
what is meant by mathematical modeling or whether affect should be treated
differently when instruction is specific to modeling as opposed to other aspects of
110 P. Kloosterman

mathematics. Keeping in mind that the chapters were developed independently, it is

not surprising that each provides different insights. I trust that readers will see
connections between the chapters that I did not, and that is a good thing. Different
insights and perspectives are, after all, what make academic life so interesting.

References

Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (2008). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan
J. Bishop to today. In P. Clarkson & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics
education (pp. 37–67). London: Springer.
Cai, J. (Ed.). (2017). Compendium of research in mathematics education. Reston: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Sharpe, C. D. (2017). Conducting design studies to investigate and support
mathematics students’ and teachers’ learning. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 208–233). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Grouws, D. A. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Reston:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kaiser, G. (2017). The teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compen-
dium for research in mathematics education (pp. 267–291). Reston: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Esmonde, I. (2017). Identity in research on mathematics education. In
J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 637–648). Reston:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Infor-
mation Age.
Lester, F. K., Jr. (Ed.). (2007). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning. Charlotte: Information Age.
McLoed, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement:
Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 667–699). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–314). Charlotte: Infor-
mation Age.
Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education:
Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293–311.
Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of
mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16,
565–613.
Thompson, A. (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).
Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Vig, R., Star, J. R., Dupuis, D. N., Lein, A. E., & Jitendra, A. K. (2015). Exploring the impact of
knowledge of multiple strategies on students’ learning about proportions. In J. A. Middleton,
J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 61–74). London:
Springer.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative
Perspective on Mathematical Engagement

Gerald A. Goldin

Abstract Mathematical engagement is a complex, multidimensional, and dynamic

construct. It involves giving attention to one or more objects of engagement – e.g. a
mathematical concept, a problem to solve, a situation to be modeled, and/or a person
or group in the immediate environment. For a student, engagement often entails
social interactions with a teacher, a parent, a tutor, or peers. Sometimes it is
characterized as involving interacting cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects
(although these do not constitute distinct types of engagement). This chapter
explores briefly another of its dimensions – the conative, which encompasses
individuals’ experienced needs, goals, desires, and meaningful purposes, and how
these are (or are not) fulfilled. Relationships among mathematical engagement,
fundamental human needs, conative feelings, motivating desires, and engagement
structures are discussed. Then I outline a possible model describing students’ in-the-
moment mathematical engagement during challenging classroom activity such as
mathematical modeling. The crucial question for educators becomes how immediate
mathematical experiences can meet fundamental, universal needs. This points
toward ways of removing barriers to motivation and productive engagement asso-
ciated specifically with mathematics.

Keywords Conation · Mathematical engagement · Motivation · Motivating desires

Introduction

Students engage mathematically for diverse reasons. Moreover, a student’s imme-

diate reasons for engagement vary considerably from one occasion to another,
depending on features of the situation. But over time, far too many become
unmotivated, and disengage with mathematics.

G. A. Goldin (*)
Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
e-mail: geraldgoldin@dimacs.rutgers.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 111

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_8
112 G. A. Goldin

In this chapter, I endeavor to develop a conative perspective on mathematical

engagement. Conation encompasses individuals’ experienced needs, drives, desires,
goals, choices, and meaningful purposes, and how these are (or are not) fulfilled. I
hope to persuade the reader that to motivate students of mathematics in large
numbers in the long term, it is important for educators to connect the study of
mathematics “in the moment” far more explicitly with fundamental, universal human
needs. To accomplish this, we need to understand conative processes in mathemat-
ical contexts, and their interactions with affect and cognition.
The chapter is organized as follows. Section “The conative domain” outlines
some aspects of conation, including what it is and why it is valuable for us to
distinguish it from affect in mathematics education research. I discuss some inter-
actions of conation with affect and cognition, and consider social interactions in
relation to conation.
Section “Needs or drives, hierarchies, and desires” addresses the topic of funda-
mental human needs, hierarchies of needs, and their relation to in-the-moment
desires that can drive engagement. I raise again the basic, frequently-asked question,
“Why study mathematics?” and propose that ultimately, the answer must relate
mathematics to universal needs – not superficially, and not just to address one
need, but in consideration of the full spectrum of needs suggested by research in
the psychology of personality.
In section “In-the-moment mathematical engagement”, I stress the complexity
and importance for mathematics learning of in-the-moment engagement. This leads
into the discussion of motivating desires and engagement structures – constructs
introduced in some of my earlier work, but not previously examined from an overtly
conative standpoint. I then consider a set of motivating desires in greater detail,
including some of their conative, affective, and cognitive aspects. I discuss how
motivating desires can arise in service of other motivating desires in classroom
contexts, and some ways to classify common motivating desires for mathematics
in relation to well-known theories of motivation.
Then in section “Outline of a model for productive student engagement in
mathematics”, I outline in a preliminary way a model for (productive) in-the-
moment engagement in mathematics based on fundamental needs, educational
contexts, motivating desires, and engagement structures. This points toward ways
to ensure that affective and motivational barriers commonly associated with math-
ematics do not arise, and suggests some future research directions.
The scope of the chapter does not accommodate an extensive literature review,
and much relevant research is omitted. I try to indicate relationships with some other
models, and provide citations where the most closely-related literature is reviewed.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 113

The Conative Domain

Description and Discussion

Psychologists sometimes, but not always, distinguish conation (or volition) as a

component of human mental activity that parallels cognition and affect. Conation
refers to the dimension (or domain) of human needs and drives, desires and goals,
choices, intentionality, and “will” – that is, the “why” behind human behavior (e.g.,
Snow et al. 1996 and references therein). It thus extends naturally to include a
person’s planning, constructing, and/or organizing ways to meet her needs, achieve
her goals, fulfill her desires, etc. “Subcomponents” of conation have been identified
as (for example) direction, energizing, and persistence (e.g., Huitt 1999). Human
mental activity can be regarded as involving complex and dynamic interactions
among conation, cognition, and affect.
The discussion here comes from the perspective of a mathematics educator, not
an educational psychologist. Many of the ideas mentioned have been well known for
some time, especially in the psychology of personality, and I necessarily omit much
that is important to the study of conation and motivation. My main purpose is to
highlight the importance and potential value to mathematics educators of giving
serious attention to and elaborating on the conative dimension in fostering students’
mathematical engagement. A second purpose is to outline a preliminary model that
may be of use to mathematics educators and researchers in mathematics education.
In the considerable work on motivation in theoretical or empirical studies of
mathematics teaching and learning, an explicit focus on conation (e.g., Tait-
McCutcheon 2008) has in fact been relatively rare. Instead, the conative dimension
is usually treated rather tacitly, with motivation most frequently studied by focusing
on its cognitive, metacognitive, and affective aspects (e.g., Hannula 2006; Jansen
and Middleton 2011; Middleton et al. 2017 and extensive references therein).
More specifically, goals are typically identified. They are characterized and
classified, and their emotional content is considered. Motivation is sometimes
described along the dimensions of extrinsic to intrinsic (drawn from the nature of
the goal) or non-self-determined vs. self-determined (e.g., Ryan and Deci 2000);
absent or mild vs. intense; or other descriptors. Empirical studies identify descriptive
variables correlated with various measures of mathematical engagement or success.
But questions about why specific in-the-moment the goals exist and how they
function remain comparatively unexplored. What are the conative feelings or drives
behind students’ goals, and their relationship to fundamental needs of the personality
on the one hand and mathematics on the other? How can students’ highly-variable,
potentially malleable classroom engagement experiences with mathematics be
shaped in ways that allow long-term interest and motivation to develop?
114 G. A. Goldin

In the extant literature, cognitive aspects of motivation pertain especially to the

framing of goals based on the person’s prior knowledge, appraisal of their attain-
ability, formulation of strategies for reaching them, attention, (metacognitive) self-
regulation, relevant cognitive structures; and so forth. Affective aspects pertain
especially to the person’s emotional feelings (states and traits), including outcome
emotions and achievement emotions (Pekrun 2006; Pekrun et al. 2007), emotional
aspects of attitudes and beliefs such as self-efficacy beliefs (Dweck 2000; Leder et al.
2002), meta-affect (DeBellis and Goldin 2006; Goldin 2000, 2002), affective struc-
tures, etc. The affective domain of motivation is often studied under assumptions for
which there is considerable empirical evidence; for example:
• That positive emotions (or alternatively, eventual positive emotions after some
experiences of difficulty) enhance motivation, while negative emotions impede it;
• That behavior is generally directed toward incentives or possible rewards, whose
achievement leads to experiences of emotions such as elation, pride, or
satisfaction.
Considering both cognitive and affective aspects, it is often taken to be the case
(again, with empirical support):
• That the most important distinctions among goals students may have for mathe-
matics include intrinsic vs. extrinsic, approach vs. avoidance,
proximate vs. distal, or ego (performance) vs. mastery (Middleton et al. 2017
and references therein),
• That beliefs (having both cognitive and affective aspects) influence both the
appraisal of a goal and the choice of strategy for reaching it (Leder et al. 2002
and references therein).
Why, then, is elaborating this kind of analysis insufficient? Why should we consider
conation as distinct from affect and cognition in our approach to mathematical
motivation?

Distinguishing Conation from Affect

To understand the value of this distinction, I think it is useful to begin with the idea
of conative feelings, which I take to be subjective sensations that may be termed
wants. These are not typically included in proposed taxonomies of fundamental
emotions.
Thus, “basic” emotions are often taken to include joy, sadness, surprise, anger,
fear, and disgust. More complex emotional feelings particularly important to math-
ematical activity, such as anxiety, boredom, hatred, frustration, satisfaction, disap-
pointment, or pride, are (at least in principle) related to the more basic emotions
occurring in combination in particular situations. Affective constructs such as
attitudes, beliefs, and values in relation to mathematics certainly do involve strong
emotional components (Goldin 2014; Hannula 2006; McLeod 1992, 1994; Pekrun
and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2014 and references therein).
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 115

However, emotional feelings are quite different from conative sensations of need
or desire. These include such “basic” feelings as hunger, thirst, sleepiness, weari-
ness, sexual desire or attraction, physical discomfort, or the desire to touch or be
touched; and more complex feelings such as the desire to dominate or submit to
domination, to be intimate, to belong or to be accepted, to communicate, to inspire,
to know and understand, and so forth. Note too that we often use sensations of
physical need as metaphors for sensations of higher needs: One may be said to
“hunger” for companionship, to “hunger” or “thirst” for knowledge, or to have a
“passion” for mathematics. And apart from such metaphorical usages (which may
provide some hints as to underlying conative structure), I would conjecture here that
such conative feelings connect strongly with mathematical motivation and engage-
ment in ways that remain to be fully studied.
Explicit consideration of conation allows us to explore the sources of student
engagement in conative constructs: to address deeply the question of why what the
student is doing matters (or does not matter) to him or her. Thus:
• I would like to set aside the conjecture (often tacitly assumed) that in-the-moment
goal formation and persistence is explained fully by anticipation of success, or by
the positive emotions that will result from goal attainment – i.e., the conjecture
that goals have an affective origin or can be fully understood through anticipated
consequential affect.
• I would like to replace this by the conjecture that every in-the-moment goal has a
conative origin, distinct from affect and cognition. Thus, the goal may be framed
and strategized cognitively, and affect may occur in anticipation of or as a
consequence of the goal’s being attained or not, or the degree of progress toward
the goal; but neither cognition nor affect is itself the source of the goal.
For example, the expectancy-value theory developed by Wigfield and Eccles
(2000) and their collaborators, focuses on cognitive and affective constructs such as
expectancies of success, beliefs about ability, and subjective values, as explanatory
of motivation.
The self-determination theory developed by Ryan and Deci (2000) and their
colleagues, identifies three “innate psychological needs” whose satisfaction leads
to greater intrinsic or self-determined motivation: competence, autonomy, and relat-
edness. Characterization of these as needs points to the important role of conation.
But if we take a conative perspective on motivation and engagement, we should
understand not only the finer structure of these three needs (each of which may
actually be categories embracing several more specifically-defined needs) but the
role of many other fundamental needs of the personality. We should understand
structures built up from such needs that pertain to mathematical activity, as we have
come to understand cognitive structures and affective structures. We should likewise
explore how extrinsic motivation relates to fundamental needs and to structures of
conation.
From this perspective, motivation “in the moment” may be regarded as a dynamic
interaction of the conative with affective and cognitive dimensions. Likewise, the
importance of social interactions to motivation can be understood from a conative
perspective – through exploration of the needs that social interactions fulfill, can
116 G. A. Goldin

fulfill, or fail to fulfill in mathematical contexts. Then we may be able to see in

greater detail the ways in which productive mathematical engagement relates to
students’ needs, desires, and will, and lay a foundation for methods of fostering such
engagement in classroom environments.
I have mentioned only a small fraction of the relevant research literature. Addi-
tional references of importance having points of contact with this chapter include
Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000), Midgley et al. (2001), Harackiewicz et al. (2002),
Krapp (2005), Sansone and Thoman (2005), Hidi and Renninger (2006),
Harackiewicz et al. (2008), Usher (2009), Renninger and Hidi (2011, 2016), Larson
et al. (2014), and many others.

Conation Interacting with Affect and Cognition

Some characterizations that pertain to the study of emotion are also relevant to
conation. For example, as we do for emotions, we may distinguish conative states
(“in the moment” desires or wants), from traits (longer-term conative characteristics
of the individual). We may consider the architecture of conation (structures and
relationships underlying or supporting various desires).
Thus, to say a student desires recognition from the teacher of his correct problem
solution (“in the moment”), may be descriptive of his state of conation. Such a desire
may possibly be identified as seeking an affirmation of competence, or as seeking
relatedness, or both. But there is much more to be said about this student’s state.
To say the student has a high need for recognition or affirmation from those
around him, may describe a personality trait – but this does not necessarily mean that
on any specific occasion, he will experience this desire. Evocation of the desire is
likely to depend on the context and circumstances of the mathematical activity.
And to say that a student’s desire for recognition or affirmation can stem from a
deeper need for nurturance or security is to assert something about the architecture
of conation – a possible relation between her in-the-moment desire and a more
fundamental need of the personality. Even if correct in general, such a relation may
or may not be applicable to any specific individual’s traits, or to the individual’s
desire as it occurs on a particular occasion.
Problem solving (in mathematics, or more generally) is usually defined to occur
in a situation where a person “has a goal” but does not immediately know how to
reach it, or experiences some impasse in reaching it. Typically, the goal in a
mathematics problem might be to find values of an unknown satisfying an equation,
to prove a stated theorem, or to answer the question in a “story problem” situation.
But what does it mean to “have” such a goal in the first place? What other goals,
desires, or needs (of a “non-mathematical” nature) does the immediate problem goal
serve? And why are these important to the student? These are conative questions.
Let us consider briefly how conation is intertwined with affect and cognition in
relation to mathematical activity. In earlier work, I have consistently considered in-
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 117

the-moment or “local” affect occurring during problem solving to be representa-

tional (DeBellis and Goldin 2006; Goldin 2000). That is, emotional feelings encode
essential information, some of which is strategic (i.e., cognitive). But let us look
closely at what is encoded by some of the most commonly-occurring affect. Thus
curiosity (often considered affective) typically encodes a desire (conative) to know
(cognitive). Frustration (affective) likewise may encode unmet desire (conative) as
well as unsuccessful strategy (cognitive). Loneliness (affective) may encode craving
(conative) for the joy of companionship or acceptance (affective and cognitive).
Fear (affective) encodes an urgent need (conative) for escape to safety (affective and
cognitive).
Attitudes, beliefs and belief structures likewise have important conative compo-
nents, beyond their cognitive and affective aspects. Consider, for example, self-
efficacy beliefs regarding mathematics, which may partially constitute a student’s
mathematical identity (e.g. Dweck 2000). These involve propositions, imagery, etc.
about the person’s abilities, held to be true, valid, or right in some sense (cognitive).
The beliefs typically carry emotional charge for the believer (affective). But they
also have powerful implications for what is desired or not desired in mathematical
situations (conative) – e.g., whether possible objects of desire such as understanding
a mathematical idea, persuading others through reasoning, achieving a high grade,
impressing the teacher with one’s ability, or helping other students, are in actuality
worthy of desire, or not. Beliefs influence not only what individuals desire when they
engage with mathematics, but how they manage or control their desires – a meta-
conative aspect of their activity.
It is plausible, then, to consider motivational structures or engagement structures
(Goldin et al. 2011) pertaining to mathematics as fundamentally conative, involving
needs, goals, and desires – whether long-term (e.g., a career goal) or immediate (e.g.,
a mathematical problem-solving goal). Needs and desires evoke cognitive appraisals
of possible success and affective responses to failure or success. In the moment,
students experience affective pathways (changing emotional states), meta-affect
(affect about affect), and the longer-term influences of prior affective experience.
But we cannot fully understand mathematical motivation without careful analysis of
how the cognitive and affective domains interact with the conative.
And as mentioned above, there is the important phenomenon of meta-conation
(Snow 1996), which encompasses the internal monitoring and regulation of needs,
goals, and desires, as well as the person’s desires about desires, or meta-desires –
e.g., when one wants to want something but does not, or else has unwanted desires.
Such monitoring, regulation, and meta-desire likewise involves both affect and
cognition.
These dimensions – the cognitive, affective, and conative – interact dynamically
during mathematical engagement (in the moment), and combine into more enduring
psychological structures. A theory which describes less than this is ultimately
insufficient.
118 G. A. Goldin

Needs or Drives, Hierarchies, and Desires

Many famous theories of personality begin with a characterization of universal

human drives or needs. It is not necessary to make a specific commitment to any
one theory in order to regard the following as unquestionably important to conation:
• Sexuality, the “pleasure principle,” and “sublimation” (libido), and aggression
(“death-wish”), fundamental to the psychoanalytic ideas of Sigmund Freud
[1856–1939] (Freud 1990);
• The “will to power” or “striving for recognition and superiority,” characterized
by Alfred Adler [1870–1937] (Adler 1917, 1998);
• The “will to meaning,” in the profound thinking of Victor Frankl [1905–1997]
(Frankl 2014);
• Needs of the personality as described by Henry Murray, including (for example)
understanding, succorance, harm avoidance, deference to another, avoiding
belittlement, achievement, avoiding blame, and nurturance (Murray 2008);
• The “hierarchy of human needs” proposed by Abraham Maslow (1943), moving
from “deficiency needs” to “growth needs”: (1) physiological needs, (2) safety
needs, (3) social needs (love, belonging, intimacy), (4) needs for esteem and
accomplishment, (5) the need for self-actualization and creativity.
The above characterizations are overlapping, and of course they are described but
sketchily in this rather inadequate summary. In my view, they may also be incom-
plete in important ways. But the basic idea that such needs exist, and that they drive
behavior, is essential to conation.
Let me remark that the concept of self-actualization (at least, as I interpret it here)
need not imply a self-centered or “ego” focus. For many, the greatest self-
actualization may occur through meeting the needs of others.
Discussions of fundamental needs of the personality may seem quite far from
mathematics education research. Historically, they have received little attention from
our field. But at this point, let us consider the questions often asked by students.
“Why study mathematics? What good is it to me? When will I ever use it?” The usual
answers, “You need math for college. It is a prerequisite for many careers. You can
use it in everyday life, when you go shopping or open a bank account. It has many
other practical applications, which you will understand later in life,” or, “It helps you
learn to think logically,” are usually unsatisfying, frustrating, and often untrue –
what practical uses (now, or later in life) do most students ever find in trigonometric
identities, the quadratic formula, or various criteria for establishing the congruence
of triangles?
The fundamental challenge to mathematics educators, in my view, is to relate the
learning of mathematics in a deep way to fundamental human needs as they manifest
themselves in the personalities of learners. It is especially important that we under-
stand the immediate, in-the-moment desires that stimulate mathematical engage-
ment, as well as the long-term goals and aspirations that motivating continuing
mathematical study, as serving basic needs of the personality.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 119

Our goal should be for students to experience mathematics as conferring power,

providing meanings, and offering possibilities for belonging, esteem, and self-
actualization – not just for a few, but for everyone. And such possibilities should
be offered not as far-off, intangible, potential benefits. They should occur in the here-
and-now, lived experiences of students, beginning in kindergarten and extending
throughout their education. When reading and writing are well taught, students can
have such experiences. Why not in mathematics?
To accomplish this, I think we must understand deeply the phenomenon of
mathematical engagement – what drives it, what structures influence it or govern
it, and what conditions foster or inhibit its occurrence and development. The main
point of this chapter is to argue that the relevant structures are fundamentally
conative. Personal empowerment can be enhanced through ways of thinking pro-
vided by mathematics, as well as by problem-solving skill as it develops and is
applied with tangible results. Understanding increases with the pursuit of mathe-
matical curiosity and the experience of reward in its awakening and fulfillment.
Mathematics offers aesthetic experience, the beauty and fascination of exotic pat-
terns, and many possibilities for creative thinking and artistic expression. Mathe-
matics can fulfill social needs – it is a language for communication, opening
possibilities to experience belonging to a local community and to a world commu-
nity. It offers a way to “see” the world, a lens that is different from but comple-
mentary to ways of “seeing” that might be called emotional, literary, artistic,
political, economic, spiritual, or other ways of experiencing life.
Through mathematics, one acquires ways to contribute to others – to peers, to a
local community, to humanity. Mathematics can contribute significantly to the
formation of personal identity. And of course, it opens life opportunities – not
only economic opportunities, but also social and recreational ones. Our challenge
is to translate such potential ways in which mathematics can meet fundamental needs
into students’ immediate school experiences.
And as mathematics teachers, educators and educational researchers, we can also
embrace the notion that inspiring the learning and appreciation of mathematics is a
form of our own self-actualization.

In-the-Moment Mathematical Engagement

Complexity and Importance

Sometimes mathematical engagement is operationalized as a trait – a relatively

stable characteristic of the individual that endures for months, a year or more, or a
lifetime. Likewise, mathematical disengagement is seen as the opposite trait.
Engagement is also sometimes interpreted as unidimensional: that is, a student
may be more engaged with mathematics, or less. It is sometimes seen as tridimen-
sional: researchers try to distinguish among a student’s cognitive engagement,
affective engagement, and behavioral engagement – although these categories
120 G. A. Goldin

were originally introduced as convenient headings for a research review, rather than
as distinct types of engagement (Fredricks et al. 2004).
But to understand a student’s in-the-moment mathematical engagement as a dynami-
cally evolving state, we need a different approach. First, one must note the complexity of
the phenomenon. It entails an object of engagement (e.g., a math problem), but this object
may change (and change back) from one moment to the next. There is an immediate focus
of attention – that is, arousal in relation to specific feature(s) being attended to, related to the
object of engagement. There is an interaction of the student with her immediate environ-
ment, and the interaction is one that matters to the student for reasons that may or may not
be specific to mathematics. Engaged activity is highly variable, dependent on incentives, the
task environment, the social press, and many other psychological and contextual factors.
While complex and variable, and thus more difficult to study than students‘more
stable characteristics such as attitudes and beliefs, mathematically engaged activity –
as it takes place in classrooms and sometimes out of school – is recognized as
centrally important to learning. And what takes place “in the moment,” as distinct
from longer-term affective or motivational traits, is open in that same moment to
influence by the teacher. That is, in-the-moment engagement is highly malleable in a
way that students’ motivational traits are not.

Engagement Structures and Motivating Desires

in Mathematics Classes

To describe the dynamic complexity of in-the-moment engagement, my colleagues

Yakov Epstein, Roberta Schorr, Lisa Warner, and I identified in earlier work some
characteristic patterns occurring in mathematics classrooms, which we termed
engagement structures (Goldin et al. 2011). An engagement structure is a kind of
psychological/social/behavioral constellation. It is situated in the individual, and
becomes active in a specific situation. It is archetypal, in the sense that similar
engagement structures seem to develop nearly universally in human beings. It
includes:
• An in-the-moment goal or motivating desire (that defines the structure),
• Characteristic behaviors, including especially social interactions,
• Sequences of associated emotional states (affective pathways),
• Expressions of affect,
• Meanings and implications encoded in emotions,
• Meta-affect,
• Self-talk – that is, the person’s thoughts, or “inner voice,”
• Interactions with the person’s beliefs and values,
• Interactions with the person’s orientations and personality traits,
• Interactions with the individual’s (mathematical and non-mathematical)
cognition.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 121

There is an analogy here with cognitive structures that have been characterized in
describing the complexity of mathematical problem solving and development – e.g.,
conservation of number, volume, etc., proportional reasoning, coordination of con-
ditions, and so forth. These, too, develop nearly universally in individuals as they
develop, and become active in specific problem situations. They typically involve
multiple systems of internal cognitive representation, characteristic cognitive pro-
cesses, and observable patterns of behavior. They are what I regard as “mid-level
structures” – far more complex than discrete skills or competencies, but not as
“global” as overall mathematical ability or motivation. And they help us understand
certain patterns in mathematical cognition and behavior that would otherwise be
extremely difficult to analyse. For example, during problem solving, cognitive
structures can “call on” or activate other cognitive structures, or one active structure
can “branch” into another – for example, a student coordinating two mathematical
conditions may make use of proportional reasoning in formulating one of the two
conditions. But a student with a well-developed structure is not always using it. Its
activation depends strongly on the context.
Likewise, engagement structures as we conceive of them develop in most or all
students, but are not always active. When they are, one may “call on” another, or
“branch” into another structure. Engagement structures, too, are “mid-level struc-
tures” – more complex than goals, emotions, or behaviors, but less global than
personality traits.
In earlier work, we labeled engagement structures as “archetypal affective struc-
tures,” but my perspective now is that they are better considered as conative
structures – the motivating desire is the pivotal element, in response to which the
full engagement structure (behavior, thoughts, emotions, etc.) develops as a stable
pattern. Indeed, we label the engagement structure by the motivating desire that
initiates its activation in the moment.
Examples of previously-identified motivating desires (and corresponding engage-
ment structures) often active in mathematics classrooms are the following (Goldin
et al. 2011):
• To complete the assigned task, thus fulfilling a commitment (Get The Job Done)
• To impress others (or oneself) with one’s mathematical ability (Look How Smart
I Am)
• To achieve a desired payoff, which may be “extrinsic” or “intrinsic” to the
mathematics (Check This Out)
• To experience the joy of understanding and/or deep immersion in the activity, or
flow (Czikszentmihalyi 1990) (I’m Really Into This)
• To confront a challenge to one’s status, or “save face” (Don’t Disrespect Me)
• To avoid a possible interaction leading to trouble or conflict (Stay Out Of
Trouble)
• To address a perceived inequity and restore fairness (It’s Not Fair)
• To help someone else understand the mathematics (Let Me Teach You)
• To “look good” by giving a false impression of engagement (Pseudo-
Engagement)
122 G. A. Goldin

• To have one’s culture or heritage acknowledged as it occurs in a multicultural

mathematical context (Verner et al. 2013) (Value My Culture)
In addition to the above, some subsequently proposed motivating desires occurring
in mathematics classes include (Goldin 2017):
• To escape from the current social environment (I Want Out)
• To interrupt the ongoing mathematical activity of others in the class (Stop The
Class)
• To dominate another in the activity (Do As I Say)
• To submit to another in the activity (Just Tell Me What To Do)
• To have it acknowledged that one’s answer or solution is right, while a rival’s is
not (I’m Right You’re Wrong)
• To obtain assistance with the mathematics (Help Me)
• To be held as worthy by the teacher or other students (Value Me)
• To avoid notice by the teacher or other students (Don’t Notice Me)
• To be the center of attention (Focus On Me)
An ongoing exploratory study with preservice and practicing teachers of mathemat-
ics led to our identifying two additional motivating desires (Warner et al. in
progress):
• To make a meaningful contribution to one’s group, and
• To avoid letting one’s group down.
Note that the goal (the object of desire, or the situation to be avoided) may be
tangible (e.g., a payoff), but more often is a situation likely to involve an emotional
state.
The above is more than a list of context-based goals resulting (if attained) in
positive emotions. Each motivating desire stems from the possibility of meeting
some more fundamental human need. Each commonly evokes some characteristic
behavior patterns, strategies, thoughts or self-talk, affective pathways, etc.,
suggesting considerable structure. And as noted, when an engagement structure
associated with a motivating desire become active, it may evoke other motivating
desires in service of fulfilling the original one.
For example, a student who wants to help another student understand a mathe-
matical concept (“Let Me Teach You”) may find that his knowledge or mathematical
expertise is not recognized, and his help is rejected. Responding to the frustration of
his original goal, he may experience a desire to impress the other student with his
ability – so that the patterns associated with “Look How Smart I Am” become active.
It may then occur that the original goal becomes less salient or is forgotten. In that
case, “Let Me Teach You” fully branches into “Look How Smart I Am.” Likewise, a
student who wants her group to complete the assigned task (“Get The Job Done”)
may observe that another student fails to understand some mathematical point. This
may evoke the desire in her to help the other student, so that “Let Me Teach You”
becomes active. Such branching of engagement structures is analogous to the way
processes associated with well-established cognitive structures may call on or evoke
other processes.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 123

Characterization of engagement structures associated with in-the-moment moti-

vating desires allows a descriptive richness at the psychological level of the complex
dynamics involved with mathematical engagement.

Some Ways to Classify Motivating Desires for Mathematical

Activity

The motivating desires identified may be classified along various dimensions that
have been identified as important in models of mathematical motivation or engage-
ment. Thus, some involve overtly mathematical goals, while others do not. Among
those for which the object of attention most often relates explicitly to mathematical
content, we have:
• Get The Job Done • Look How Smart I Am • Check This Out (intrinsic payoff)
• I’m Really Into This • Let Me Teach You • I’m Right You’re Wrong
• Help Me
An important distinction is drawn between mastery vs. performance (or ego) goals.
The former are centered mainly on learning the mathematical content; the latter on
comparison of oneself to others. Motivating desires mainly or most frequently
involving mastery goals include:
• Get The Job Done • I’m Really Into This • Check This Out (intrinsic payoff)
• Let Me Teach You • Help Me
Motivating desires mainly or most frequently involving performance or ego goals
include:
• Don’t Disrespect Me • Look How Smart I Am • Check This Out
(extrinsic payoff)
• It’s Not Fair • Stay Out Of Trouble • Focus On Me
• Pseudo-Engagement • Value Me • I’m Right You’re Wrong
• Do As I Say • Just Tell Me What To Do
(surrender of ego to another)
Another important distinction is drawn between approach vs. avoidance goals. An
approach goal involves reaching or attaining an objective; an avoidance goal
involves preventing something from occurring, or staying away from a specific
situation or outcome. Motivating desires typically involving an approach goal
include:
• Check This Out • Look How Smart I Am • Don’t Disrespect Me
• Let Me Teach You • Get The Job Done • Focus On Me
• I’m Really Into This • Value My Culture • I’m Right You’re Wrong
• Do As I Say • Focus on Me • Help Me
• Stop The Class • Value Me
124 G. A. Goldin

Those typically involving avoidance goals include:

• Stay Out Of Trouble • Pseudo-Engagement • Don’t Notice Me
• I Want Out • Just Tell Me What To Do
Finally, most but not all motivating desires are overtly social, in that they relate
mainly to having or avoiding particular kinds of social interactions. Here I would
include:
• Stay Out of Trouble • Look How Smart I Am • Don’t Disrespect Me
• It’s Not Fair • Pseudo-Engagement • Let Me Teach You
• Value My Culture • Focus On Me • I’m Right You’re Wrong
• Do As I Say • Help Me • Don’t Notice Me
• Stop The Class • Value Me • I Want Out
But merely classifying motivating desires does not itself address the profound role
that conation plays in mathematical engagement. To better explore this role, I would
like to propose in outline form a preliminary model that takes the conative dimension
more deeply into account.

Outline of a Model for Productive Student Engagement

in Mathematics

Engagement structures as described above are complex constructs, organized around

motivating desires but involving characteristic patterns that ensue. But the motivat-
ing desire or goal is itself already complex, with affective, cognitive, and conative
aspects, and typically involves social interactions in an important way. The moti-
vating desires that students experience in the moment, leading them to engage in
mathematics, are diverse. How do they arise? How can we as educators understand
them, encourage the most appropriate desires in various contexts, and make use of
our understanding to promote long-term, fruitful relationships with mathematics in
most or all of our students?
Referring to Murray’s characterization of human needs, we suggested that each
motivating desire could stem from an opportunity to fulfill such a need (Goldin et al.
2011). For example, “Get The Job Done” can stem from a need for deference, “to
yield to the influence of an allied other” – in the mathematics classroom, the “allied
other” is the teacher who describes the task to be completed. “Look How Smart I
Am” stems from the need for achievement, “to increase self-regard by the exercise of
talent.” Likewise, the need for understanding, “to represent in symbols the order of
nature,” may underlie “I’m Really Into This;” while “Don’t Disrespect Me” may
stem from a need for infravoidance, “to avoid conditions which may lead to
belittlement,” and “Stay Out Of Trouble” from a need for harmavoidance, “to take
precautionary measures.” Pseudo-Engagement stems from blame avoidance, “to
avoid blame or rejection.”
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 125

This point of view seems likewise compatible with the self-determination theory
of Ryan and Deci (2000) mentioned above, where competence, autonomy, and
relatedness needs (or types of needs) are identified.
The present outline of a (preliminary) model does not commit to a specific theory
or hierarchy of fundamental needs, nor does it posit some needs as superior to others
in the kinds of motivating desires that can stem from them. Rather I propose several
components that embrace the complexity of engagement with mathematics in class-
room contexts. For each component, I suggest some directions for mathematics
education research that – with attention to conation – can contribute to the advance-
ment of engagement.
The components of this model are:
• (1) A sociocultural context conducive to meeting some fundamental needs
through mathematical activity;
• (2) Some ways offered by the teacher whereby such needs can be met;
• (3) Students’ individual trait-dependent thresholds for various motivating desires
to become active in the given situation(s);
• (4) Engagement ensuing from the activation of motivating desires, with encour-
agement and monitoring;
• (5) Characteristic patterns of emotions, cognition, social interactions and other
behavior associated with engagement structures; and
• (6) Engagement outcomes influencing the development of longer-term, powerful
structures of affect and conation in relation to mathematics.
Let us consider each of these briefly.
(1) The school culture and the classroom culture set a context for mathematical
activity. To foster engagement, the culture should be one in which students
perceive opportunities to meet some fundamental need(s) through their mathe-
matical activity, and can potentially experience a sense of fulfillment. Research
is needed to investigate what constitutes such contexts, and why: e.g., expecta-
tions of meaningful mathematics, culturally relevant mathematics, classroom
norms fostering respect for problem solving activity that includes valuing mis-
takes, expectations of success, belongingness and shared values, esteem by
peers, etc.
(2) The teacher of mathematics contributes (explicitly or implicitly) a variety of
ways in which students’ need(s) can be met, together with possible or proposed
objects of engagement (e.g., mathematical problems, modeling or other activi-
ties, team activity). This creates possibilities for one or more motivating desires.
The immediate goal (e.g., recognition, helping another student, successful com-
pletion of a task) is perceived as desirable by students because, in this context, it
meets some fundamental need. Research is needed on the conative aspects of
various ways the teacher “sets the stage” for the mathematical activity – e.g.,
describes a task to be completed, appeals to students’ curiosity, offers an
extrinsic reward, creates a teamwork situation, etc. – and what follows. The
process of setting expectations and inviting possibilities may be influenced, for
126 G. A. Goldin

example, by teachers’ characteristics – e.g., mathematical knowledge for teach-

ing, attitudes toward mathematics etc.
(3) The students, of course, have a spectrum of personality traits, characteristics, and
orientations toward mathematics, some more malleable (potentially) than others.
These influence individual thresholds for various motivating desires of students
to become active, in the context that has been set. Students’ cognitive and
affective appraisals result in their identifying possible approach goals (objects
or situations of desire) and/or avoidance goals. Research is suggested to inves-
tigate how student interests, self-efficacy and other beliefs, personality traits,
mind-set, grit, and other characteristics, influence the activation and continuation
of various motivating desires in different mathematical contexts that occur in
schools or other environments.
(4) A variety of productive motivating desires (or possibly, less productive ones in
the given context), as identified above, arise among the students. Each student’s
motivating desire is oriented toward some object of engagement (or toward
attaining some object or situation), and stimulates attention by the student
directed toward that object or features related to the object. Engagement ensues,
encouraged and monitored through group and peer interactions, and interactions
with the teacher. Research is suggested to investigate the dynamics of conation,
affect, cognition, and social interactions as activity proceeds, with special
attention to the conative dimension – how desires and goals change during the
activity, including branching from one motivating desire to another, and how
they evolve over longer periods of time.
(5) Characteristic patterns of engagement then occur, associated with specific moti-
vating desires. These can be understood as active engagement structures
(as described in the literature) driving the students during their activity, includ-
ing sequences of emotional feeling (affective pathways), self-talk, social inter-
actions and other behaviors. Further research can identify additional engagement
structures associated with mathematical activity, distinguish operationally
among engagement structures, and characterize them further – particularly,
their conative origins.
(6) Finally, outcomes of engagement fulfill (or do not fulfill) the multiple motivating
desires initiating active engagement structures. When desires are fulfilled in
ways that students experience as meeting fundamental needs over a sufficient
length of time, what develops is long-term, productive mathematical engage-
ment. When motivating desires appropriate to learning are frequently frustrated,
mathematical activity itself becomes something to be avoided. Then we see the
all-too-common development of low self-efficacy beliefs, “math anxiety,” and
avoidance mechanisms. Further research is suggested to trace the conative
dimension in the origins and development of mathematical motivation and
mathematical aversion.
My conviction is that the greatest thing we can do as educators is inspire our students
to discover who they are and to be all they can be. In the process of doing so, we
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 127

come to know who we are and to be all we can be. Mathematics offers paths of
discovery, beauty, understanding, ways of seeing patterns in the world, ways of
thinking, means of communication with others, possibilities for expression, oppor-
tunities for intimate connection, and powerful means of accomplishment – all in
service of full self-actualization.
None of these are intrinsically limited to a small fraction of our students. Study of
the conative dimension in mathematical learning, in interaction with cognition and
affect, may be crucial to opening mathematical understanding as a way of being for
all students in future generations.

References

Adler, A. (1917). The neurotic constitution. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.
Adler, A. (1998. edition; first English pub. 1927). Understanding human nature. Center City:
Hazelden Foundation.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving:
A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 131–147.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Frankl, V. E. (2014.; first English pub. 1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Freud, S. (1990.; first English pub 1922). Beyond the pleasure principle. New York: W. W. Norton.
Goldin, G. A. (2000). Affective pathways and representation in mathematical problem solving.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 209–219.
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. Leder,
E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(pp. 59–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem
solving. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook on emotions in
education (pp. 391–414). New York: Routledge.
Goldin, G. A. (2017). Motivating desires for classroom engagement in the learning of mathematics.
In C. Andrà, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson, & P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in maths
classrooms (pp. 219–229). New York: Springer.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement
structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM Mathematics Edu-
cation, 43, 547–560.
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63, 165–178.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94
(3), 638–645.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008).
The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between
achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1),
105–122.
128 G. A. Goldin

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Huitt, W. (1999). Conation as an important factor of mind. In Educational psychology interactive.
Valdosta: Valdosta State University. Retrieved February, 2017, from http://www.
edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/conation.html.
Jansen, A., & Middleton, J. A. (2011). Motivation matters and interest counts: Fostering engage-
ment in mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orienta-
tions. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
Larson, R. W., Shernoff, D. J., & Bempechat, J. (2014). In Shernoff, D. J., & Bempechat,
J. Engaging youth in schools: Evidence-based models to guide future innovations. NSSE
Yearbook. National Society for the Study of Education 113 (1), New York: Teachers College
Record (pp. 323–337).
Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics
education? Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). New York: Macmillan.
McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 25, 637–647.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement:
Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 667–699). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
77–86.
Murray, H. A. (2008;. first publ. 1938). Explorations in personality (70th anniversary ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,
and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18,
315–341.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook on emotions in
education. New York: Routledge.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value theory of achievement
emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.),
Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). San Diego: Academic.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation
of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement.
New York: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic.
Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Interest as the missing motivator in self-regulation.
European Psychologist, 10(3), 175–186.
Snow, R. E. (1996). Self-regulation as meta-conation? Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3),
261–267.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D., III. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative
functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 243–310). New York: Macmillan.
Chapter 5: Exploring a Conative Perspective on Mathematical Engagement 129

Tait-McCutcheon, S. L. (2008). Self-efficacy in mathematics: Affective, cognitive, and conative

domains of functioning. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st
annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 507–514).
Brisbane: MERGA. Retrieved December, 2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED503747.pdf.
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative
investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 275–314.
Verner, I., Massarwe, K., & Bshouty, D. (2013). Constructs of engagement emerging in an
ethnomathematically-based teacher education course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32
(3), 494–507.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic
Beliefs and Emotions in Inquiry-Based
Teaching of Mathematics

Inés M. Gómez-Chacón and Constantino De la Fuente

Abstract In the present study, we describe the actions and decision-making of

teachers in the teaching of modelling, based on their personal epistemology. The
teacher’s personal epistemology (epistemic reasoning, beliefs and emotions) acts as
a component of the cognitive and emotional conditions of a task required of students.
The strategy of analogy as a tool to foster the students’ commitment and motivation
in both real world and mathematical transitions, as well as the creation of multiple
connections: both vertical (within the world of mathematics) and horizontal (within
the real world, outside of mathematics) is prioritised. This paper proposes a
conceptualisation of the term personal epistemology, from the current ontology
and epistemology of mathematical knowledge.

Keywords Inquiry-based teaching · Modelling · Epistemology · Decision-making ·

Problem solving · Analogy

Introduction

Learning mathematics entails the development of an epistemological perspective

about the content. It is recognised that the way in which mathematics is characterised
in the classroom has much to do with the beliefs and epistemological views that the
teacher holds. The subtle (explicit and implicit) messages communicated to students
about mathematics and the nature of mathematical thinking affect, in turn, the way
students grow in mathematical knowledge and the recognition they attribute to it.
When we want to promote modelling in the classroom through inquiry-based
teaching we consider mathematics as “a process and an experience”. Knowing maths

I. M. Gómez-Chacón (*)
Instituto de Matemática Interdisciplinar, Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas, Universidad
Complutese de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
e-mail: igomezchacon@mat.ucm.es
C. De la Fuente
IES López de Mendoza Burgos (Spain), Madrid, Spain

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 131

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_9
132 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

is equated with doing maths. Research in mathematics education has focused on

examining the characteristics of the context in which this “doing” is fostered. It is the
“doing” – experimentation, abstraction, generalisation and specialisation – which
constitutes mathematics, not a transmission through perfect communication by the
teacher.
The ‘Culture of inquiry’ models the activity of research mathematicians who
expand mathematical knowledge and horizons through inquiry processes (Ernest
1990). Today, one of the challenges we have is the design and implementation of
these types of activities that can be motivating for the students within the cultural and
institutional constraints in which they operate (Artigue and Blomhoj 2013; Jaworski
2004, 2006, 2014; Maass and Doorman 2013).
Designing research-based tasks requires deep analysis of the “mathematical
experience” that is generated in both students and teachers. Thus, the creation of
inquiry-based activity for their students is itself an inquiry process: teachers learn
from the practices resulting from their teaching designs. This chapter proposes a
reflection based both on a practical situation and on broader research (De la Fuente
2016; Gómez-Chacón and De la Fuente 2018).
We approach the “mathematical experience generated” in a modelling activity
focusing on the personal epistemology of the teacher (epistemic reasoning, epistemic
beliefs and emotions). Addressing the personal epistemology of the teacher and the
interaction between it and mathematical modelling can provide points of interest for
the design of teaching modelling. The mathematical experience is something com-
plex which must be understood from the cognitive and affective point of view. Here
we will distinguish two ways of approaching the affective dimension: (1) the
threshold of the interplay between cognition and affect, which from the heuristic
point of view is of great interest, (2) the distinction in the way of thinking about the
emotional aspect, which has to do with the subject who feels (personal epistemology
and decision making according to the identification with mathematical objects) (for
further information see Gómez-Chacón (2018)).
The importance of an epistemological perspective in teaching and learning has
been reviewed by different authors (Ernest 1991; Hersh 1986; Otte 1994). In this
work the emphasis on epistemology is mainly presented as a meta-perspective, in
how the teacher thinks about knowledge. Often a meta-perspective is expounded
with a normative intent, driven by the assertion that a deeper reflection on episte-
mological issues would improve mathematical education. Research based on obser-
vational empirical studies of the epistemology of thinking in natural situations of
interaction in the classroom (Schoenfeld 2010, 2016) is scarcer. Acquiring knowl-
edge is not only a logical, sequential and standardised process, as the rationalists
would say, but learning is considered ‘intuitive’. Often the teacher is faced with
questions about how to deal with modelling teaching, and how to make decisions in
the face of modelling processes with students, most of which involve epistemic
cognition. This study tries to identify emergent configurations; some more routinised
and others more spontaneous and intuitive, which involve the decision making of the
teacher and penetrate the teaching of modelling.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 133

In what follows, sections “Personal Epistemology: Epistemic Beliefs and Emo-

tions” and “Modelling and Epistemic Reasoning Processes” present antecedents on
the topic and a theoretical frame of reference. These sections outline the concept of
personal epistemology and the learning of modelling, in particular, the analogy as a
heuristic tool for the transitions from real world modelling to the mathematical
world. The methodology used (section “Objectives and Methodology”) is briefly
described, giving rise to the presentation of the results from the development of a
Mathematical Research Project (MRP) in the classroom, which details the epistemic
mediation of the teacher through his actions and decision making (section “Personal
Epistemology of Mathematical Knowledge and Decision Making in the Class-
room”), and finally some conclusions are presented.

Personal Epistemology: Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions

Personal epistemology is the study of people’s thinking about knowledge and about
knowing. Its study is born in the field of educational and cognitive psychology
(Barzilai and Zohar 2014; Hofer and Bendixen 2012; Hofer and Pintrich 1997). Even
though in the last decades the field of personal epistemology has developed in
several different directions there is convergence in some central descriptive dimen-
sions of personal epistemology: the nature of knowledge, the certainty of knowl-
edge, the simplicity of knowledge, the source of knowledge, and the justification of
knowledge (Hofer and Pintrich 1997).
Currently there is no single model guiding research on personal epistemology
(Bendixen and Rule 2004). We briefly present some of the approaches to the concept
of personal epistemology that the perspective of educational psychology poses:
approaches to development, approaches to beliefs and approaches to resources.

Developmental Approaches

Developmental models of personal epistemology generally view students as holding

integrated epistemic positions or perspectives. These models describe students’
epistemic positions developing throughout the course of their life and studies,
often following a typical trajectory (see Barzilai and Zohar 2014; Hofer and Pintrich
1997). Developmental approaches are concerned with identifying changes in stu-
dents’ thinking. Thinking skills and theories about knowledge and knowing are
deeply and intricately linked, capturing the close link between people’s views of
knowledge and their reasoning processes by describing epistemic thinking as a
“theory-in-action”. The developmental perspective encompasses both the epistemic
reasoning processes and the epistemic beliefs and theories that underlie them. Beliefs
reflect assumptions, expectations and attitudes that may affect reasoning processes.
134 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Leder et al. (2002), Maass and Schloeglmann (2009), and Schoenfeld (1985) have
conducted extensive research in the field of beliefs in mathematical education.
In this approach, personal epistemology is a term that refers to the beliefs that
people hold about knowledge, both as to its nature and its acquisition and justifica-
tion (Hofer 2002). Although different models of competence have been proposed,
there is a consensus that epistemological beliefs refer to “belief about the nature of
knowledge and knowledge processes” (Hofer and Pintrich 1997: 112) and in some
cases learning (Op’t Eynde et al. 2006).
Epistemological beliefs have sometimes been explicitly described as a type of
metacognitive knowledge or as schemas (Muis et al. 2015; Schoenfeld 1985). These
models of epistemic beliefs and self-regulated learning are mainly concerned with
understanding how and why epistemic beliefs impact learning and how they are
conditions that serve as inputs to metalevel learning standards.

Resources Approach

A third important approach to the study of personal epistemology is the resources

approach (Elby and Hammer 2010). This perspective emerges from the “knowledge
in pieces” approach to the study and analysis of knowledge, and highlights the
fragmented and contextual nature of students’ epistemologies. Epistemological
resources are specific cognitive resources highly linked to the context that people
use to understand and reflect on their epistemic knowledge, activities and positions.
Epistemological resources may gradually advance into beliefs as they become
entirely articulated and more stable.
In the development of research, these approaches have often acted disjointedly,
without taking into account, in an integrated way, that which each of them considers
key components that underpin the concept of personal epistemology. One of the
strongest criticisms of empirical studies on personal epistemology under these
approaches to educational psychology is that they have little regard for the context
and specific domains of knowledge (Bromme 2005).
In the field of Mathematical Education we must highlight authors who have
adopted a different perspective and have implemented this epistemic integration,
although not under the coined denomination of personal epistemology (Schoenfeld
2010, 2016). For example, Schoenfeld has worked with metacognition as a central
aspect of cognition and has related it to belief systems (Schoenfeld 1987). The author
has developed a theory of decision making, centred around teachers (Schoenfeld
2010). This work is indicative of the fact that in the field of Mathematics Education
there is a fundamental and productive dialectic between theory and practice; and
contextual and knowledge components, allowing for the development of observa-
tional tools for reliable naturalistic interventions in which classrooms can serve as
laboratories.
The central idea of the Schoenfeld model is based on the claim that it is possible
to describe, explain and predict teachers’ performance, decision making and actions
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 135

during teaching based on their knowledge, beliefs and goals. In the last 20 years, the
literature on teachers has identified and broadly described the knowledge, beliefs and
goals of the teacher. Schoenfeld proposes to go some steps further, describing the
ways in which these elements interact and result in teachers’ in-the-moment
decision-making. In summary the Schoenfeld model is articulated in: resources
(especially knowledge); goals; orientations (an abstraction of beliefs, including
values, preferences, etc.); and decision-making (which can be modelled as a form
of subjective cost-benefit analysis).
Based on the Schoenfeld model, a deeper exploration of the construct that this
author poses with Orientations would be interesting. We find it crucial to pinpoint
epistemic beliefs and emotions -as an operative way of unpacking this category- as
well as the interaction between epistemic reasoning and epistemic beliefs/emotions
reflected in decision-making (Gómez-Chacón 2017). This interaction is understood
as the application of heuristics and strategies in specific contexts and specific content
in order to make judgments about right or wrong or true or false in mathematical
knowledge. Thus, this study proposes the term personal epistemology as a multi-
faceted concept that operates at cognitive, metacognitive and affective levels. For an
operational level of the term personal epistemology we have distinguished between
epistemic reasoning, epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions and decision-making.
The term epistemic beliefs shall be used to refer to a person’s beliefs about the
nature of human knowledge; its certainty and how it is conceptualised, and a
person’s beliefs about the criteria for, and the process of, knowing. Likewise, the
epistemic emotions are defined as emotions that arise when the object is the
knowledge and the processes that involve the knowing are caused by cognitive
qualities of task information and the processing of that information (Gómez-Chacón
2017; Pekrun and Linnenbink-Garcia 2012).

Modelling and Epistemic Reasoning Processes

As mentioned in the preceding section, the analysis of personal epistemology will

address the teacher’s resources, particularly their knowledge on modelling and
heuristics in problem solving.

Recognising Modelling Skills

Results from research on the learning of mathematical modelling from different

perspectives (Blum and Leiß 2005; Haines and Crouch 2005), show that student
learning in the transition from the real world to the mathematical model is hampered
by the lack of knowledge and experience related to abstraction. This behaviour is
less obvious when one moves from the mathematical model to the real world, in fact
in this case the higher process level is more likely to be used.
136 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Several research studies on modelling have considered students’ mathematical

modelling skills in terms of the expert-novice continuum (Crouch and Haines 2004).
Students have difficulty keeping the real-world demands and the model in mind all at
once. Novices tend to spend less time analysing the problem (Schoenfeld 1987), they
have difficulty distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant aspects, and believe to
have understood the problem sufficiently when they have not. Beginners immedi-
ately tend to start generating equations without recognising particular underlying
abstract problem types or being able to access relevant concepts and procedures
(Glaser and Chi 1988).
In order to tackle these challenges, the experts attempt to find an answer to the
following question: How could these students further increase their level of math-
ematical expertise? A certain level can be achieved by extended relevant motivated
practice (with feedback) on all aspects of building models for a variety of problem
types (Ericsson et al. 1993) or scaffolding of technical aspects to help beginning
modellers through stages what can initially appear to be demanding and unfamiliar
approach to problem solving and though metacognitive modelling competences
(Stillman and Galbraith 1998; Stillman 2011).
Such practice needs to be aimed towards developing recognition of underlying
problem categories and formation of sufficiently and relevantly detailed problem
representations that mediate between the abstract model and the real world problem
context. We consider that students would also need to have extended practice to
improve speed and accuracy in accessing and deploying appropriate mathematical
procedures for particular model categories and with good heuristic-based strategic
help supports.
As it shows by Stender (2017), up to now, there is no empirical evidence of how
good heuristic-based strategic help supports the modelling process and how the
support must be adapted to groups of students of different ages, knowledge or
culture. In this study is indicated that this “facilitators toolkit” might be a strong
instrument to support students that are working on complex modelling problems and
is exemplified by the use of analogy as heuristic tool.

Real-World: Mathematical World Transitions: Analogy

as a Heuristic Tool

Some aspects of analogy are specified in this section to support the understanding of
the scope of the empirical data (section “Personal Epistemology of Mathematical
Knowledge and Decision Making in the Classroom”). We will refer to the role of
analogy in the search for patterns that allow the abstraction of contexts and gener-
alisation of ideas, facilitating in the modelling processes the transitions from the real
world to the mathematical world.
In the problem-solving mathematical understanding, analogy may be considered
the prior use of solution procedures to solve the problem. Solving problems by
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 137

analogy involves the recognition of high-level relationships existing between two

domains, although the two domains share very few similarities in their superficial
characteristics (Gentner 1983, 1989).
With respect to analogical transfer, the psychology of mathematics education
distinguishes between two components of analogical thinking: access and use.
Access relates to remembering the appropriate solution procedure (memory), while
use refers to the correct implementation of the solution procedure. Researchers have
noted that much of the inability of trainees to transfer the procedure of solving a new
problem to an old one lies in access. People fail to remember the right memory
solution.
Once the student is told which solution procedure to use, the solution rates
increase significantly. In the field of educational psychology a theoretical access-
use framework for the analogical understanding of problem-solving has been devel-
oped by Novick and Holyoak (1991) and in the mathematical framework a key
model is Polya (1945, 1954).
Authors in the field of psychology (Novick and Holyoak 1991) highlight two
findings that are particularly relevant to mathematical learning: first, they find that
students who best solve problems are those who abstract the structural characteristics
of the problem; this is what cognitive psychologists call the “induction scheme”.
Those who induce an appropriate scheme develop a better conceptual understanding
of the type of problems represented in the experiment.
Secondly, positive correlations are found between the transfer of solutions
recognised and the qualification obtained in mathematics. This type of research
suggests that the so-called “conditions of applicability” are critical to success in
solving problems. In other words, being able to solve the problem is contingent on
being able to recognise which solution is appropriate. For this purpose, two pro-
cesses are important: understanding principles and executing procedures.
According to Polya’s approach, “analogy” is not a method of solution; “looking
for something analogous” or other variations of “looking for a related problem”.
Polya presents it as a heuristic suggestion involving the articulation of processes of
generalisation and specialisation. In Polya’s second book dedicated to solving
problems (Polya 1954) -the first volume is entitled Induction and analogy in
mathematics- the first thing he notes is that “Yet as we start discussing analogy we
tread on a less solid ground” (p. 13) and he suggests that the only way to deal with
the matter in a useful way is to conceptually specify analogy.
This is what he calls “clarified analogy”, whereby: “two systems are analogous if
they agree in clearly definable relations of their respective parts”. Thus a triangle in a
plane can be said to be analogous to a tetrahedron in space, and the analogy is
clarified in this case by specifying which are the relations in which they agree: two
lines in a plane cannot enclose a part of it, whereas three can; likewise, three planes
in space cannot enclose a part thereof, while four can: “The relation of the triangle to
the plane is the same as that of the tetrahedron to space in so far as both the triangle
and the tetrahedron are bounded by the minimum number of simple bounding
elements” (p.14).
138 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Table 1 Uses of analogy

Analogy. Uses in Maths class
Use 1. Proceed by analogy (from a topic) 2. Establishment of analogies (between two
topics)
Step 1 Analysis of the topic Comparing the two topics
Step 2 Construction of a topic analogous Initial establishment of analogies between
to the initial one topics

This second book (Polya 1954) is devoted to the study of the formal structure of
the reasoning made in the course of problem solving and that cannot be described
with the classical deductive patterns of logic. In the Brief Dictionary of heuristics,
Polya began by calling this “heuristic reasoning”, whereas in the second book he
called it “plausible reasoning” (Polya 1945). This clarified analogy may already be
more than a suggestion, inasmuch that not only does it imply that it would not be
wrong to do something, but it also specifies the type of transformation to be
performed.1
Finally, in his third book, Polya (1962–1965) attempts to advance towards what
he calls a “general method” -which, although announced in the first volume, fails to
appear in the second volume- He addresses the definition of general models that
could encompass many ways of elaborating problem-solving plans. It reveals the
two kinds of reasoning: demonstrative reasoning, being precise, final and “auto-
matic”; and plausible reasoning, being vague, provisional and specifically
“human”.2
In the process of conjecturing and justifying, complex chains of plausible rea-
soning are often elaborated, which may contain new nuances that enrich the patterns
already known. A thorough analysis of these processes may make it easier to make
them explicit and to model them, as this is usually done with known patterns.
The use of analogy, presented in section “Personal Epistemology of Mathemat-
ical Knowledge and Decision Making in the Classroom”, which analyses a class
session in the development of a MRP, will show us the epistemic type of mediations
performed by the teacher.
Two uses of analogy have been identified (De la Fuente 2016) (Table 1):
Use 1: Proceed by analogy. This use is based on a topic or mathematical entity in a
given context (a conceptual or procedural idea, a result, a model, a structure, . . .),
analysing its qualities and proceeding by analogy building (designing or elabo-
rating); in another context (more general or more concrete, generalising or
particularising) another topic or analogous entity, which maintains the character-
istics of the former, adapted to the new context. This process has two steps:
(1) analysis of the mathematical topic; (2) construction of the analogue topic.

1
Clarified analogy is a heuristic tool, the word “tool” meaning instrument of transformation. “To
make a table” it is defined as a “skill” since it lacks the quality of “transformation” of the problem.
2
The emphasis was added by the author.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 139

Use 2: Establish analogies. This second use is based on two topics, entities or
mathematical ideas (concepts, formulas, strategies or other procedures, demon-
strations, results, models, structures, . . .) that are compared with each other. This
is carried out through a comparative analysis using criteria to detect and establish
possible similarities and common characteristics. The analogy is established
when the common structure underlying both, independent of the contexts, is
revealed; it is then said that, for those criteria, the two entities are analogous. In
this case the process also has two steps: (1) comparing topics; (2) establishment of
analogies.
In a MRP these two uses can be sequenced: first use 2 and then use 1; That is to say,
once the analogy between the two mathematical topics (use 2) is established by
analogy (use 1), in order to construct another entity of the same type, situated in a
more general or more concrete context, by generalising or particularising, depending
on the case, the initial entities.

Objectives and Methodology

Objectives

The aim of the study is to explore the interrelationships between teacher’s personal
epistemology and the knowledge of mathematical practice in the classroom. We
show how the teacher’s decision-making in the classroom and the self-regulation of
learning in modelling activities is supported by the teacher’s personal epistemology.
In particular, the objectives of the study are:
1. To identify how the personal epistemology of the teacher (epistemic beliefs and
emotions) act as a component of the cognitive and emotional conditions of a task
required of students;
2. To explore what determines what that teacher does, on a moment-by-moment
basis and what shaped the teachers’ decision-making in the teaching of
modelling.

Methods

The qualitative methodology used is based on methods of observation and case study
(Bassey 1999). The criterion determining this case is that, on the one hand, this case
is within a convenience sample, a selected sample category (Gliner et al. 2009) and
on the other hand, the case (Teacher-FC) is a key informant, a secondary mathe-
matics teacher considered of excellence, which allows to illustrate the interface
between personal epistemology and inquiry-based teaching for modelling processes
with a wealth of data.
140 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

We focus on one modelling activity, where the inquiry based-learning is the

mathematical activity involved in the process of transforming a problem-solving task
(PST) in a Mathematical Research Project (MRP). The Mathematical research
project (MRP) is the real investigation, based on the initial problem statement, the
steps followed being completely analogous to those of scientific research, with the
teacher acting as project advisor. The process of generating a Mathematics Research
Project (MRP) from a particular problem will not only require the students’ creativ-
ity, but also the teacher’s mediation for the establishment of a suitable creative
mathematical working space.
The MRP: Functional models for modifying exam marks (see section “Personal
Epistemology of Mathematical Knowledge and Decision Making in the Class-
room”), was carried out with High School Students (17 years old), 25 students
(15 boys and 10 girls) by the secondary mathematics teacher, denoted by Teacher-
FC. Section “Personal Epistemology of Mathematical Knowledge and Decision
Making in the Classroom” presents the activity developed during four class sessions,
each lasting 1 h.
The research team includes two researchers and a secondary mathematics teacher
(Teacher-FC). The method used for data collection has been the observation of
classroom sessions, materials generated by the teacher and students in the develop-
ment of the class and semi-structured interviews with the teacher. Although we focus
here on a MRP, the study carried out with this teacher has been going on for more
than 4 years with a diversity of projects and activities (De la Fuente 2016).The lesson
was analysed by the research team. The analysis proceeded in stages. We
decomposed the lesson into smaller and smaller “episodes,” noting for each episode
which goals were present, and observing how transitions corresponded to changes in
the goals and personal epistemology of the teacher. In this way, we decomposed the
entire lesson – starting with the lesson as a whole, and ultimately characterising what
happened on a line-by-line basis.
The next step was to codify the material, taking as codes the indicators of actions
and decisions made in the classroom by the teacher related to teach the analogy as a
heuristic tool, together with a number of epistemological aspects (epistemic reason-
ing, epistemic beliefs and epistemic emotions) that had been registered in the teacher
interviews. Encoding and analysing in detail each significant piece of every session
permitted the understanding of the process of inquiry-based teaching and personal
epistemology development and to report on the factors responsible for it: goals,
modelling and epistemic reasoning, beliefs or strategic heuristic.
Section “Epistemic Reasoning in Act: Actions and Decisions in the Classroom”
shows the whole lesson and breaks it into major episodes (lesson segments), each of
which has its own internal structure according to a main category: the analogy
process as a heuristic tool for facilitating the processes of modelling (the transitions
from the real world to the mathematical world). The analogy topic is selected
because it is noted to be frequently used after a 2-year observation period of this
teacher. It is a key tool in the actions and decisions taken in the classroom.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 141

Personal Epistemology of Mathematical Knowledge

and Decision Making in the Classroom

This section presents the results of the study. Before the study described, it was
analysed based on observations that Teacher-FC used analogy quite often (emerges
as a pattern of behaviour). The main result explained here is that, the teacher uses
analogy in the teaching of Mathematical research project (MRP) as a heuristic tool to
foster student engagement several times and that this frequency of use comes and is
linked to the personal epistemology of the teacher.
Firstly, we present the results that come from the lesson analysis, in natural
situations of interaction in the classroom, where the teacher takes in the situation
and adapts accordingly (section “Epistemic Reasoning in Act: Actions and Deci-
sions in the Classroom”). Certain pieces of information and knowledge become
salient and are activated and they show up individual’s resources, goals, and
epistemic reasoning and beliefs, allowing us to model their behaviour. The sections
“Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions” and “Epistemology and Ontology of Mathemat-
ical Knowledge”, based on the data from lesson analysis and the interviews with the
teacher, show up the dimensions that support the teaching practice of Teacher-FC:
the dimension of interconnectivity between epistemic beliefs and emotions and
decision making in the classroom; the dimensions of process and of the coherence
of the mathematical experience offered to students based on the epistemology and
ontology of mathematical knowledge.

Epistemic Reasoning in Act: Actions and Decisions

in the Classroom

The mathematical modelling activity based on the study of functional models, which
relates everyday life to the school environment was proposed to work in the class by
Teacher-FC. The statement is as follows:
Mathematical Research Project (MRP): Functional models for modifying exam marks3
A high school student returned home saying that his math teacher was dissatisfied with
his students’ marks in a written test that they had done about functions, attributing it to
perhaps the proposed questions had been rather difficult. The teacher decided to “fit” those
marks using a correction factor: if the original mark was x (on a scale of 0 to 100), it would
pffiffiffi
be 10 x. That is, if the initial mark was 81, the corrected grade would be 90. Apparently, this
factor is commonly used among teachers in Israel

The class sessions to carry out this project were analysed to attempt to answer the
questions: What determines what that teacher does, on a moment-by-moment basis

3
The statement was adapted from Arcavi, A. (2007). El desarrollo y el uso del sentido de los
símbolos. UNO. Revista de Didáctica de las Matemáticas, nº 44, 59–75.
142 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Fig. 1 Diagram of actions and decisions for discussing the MRP: “Functional models for modi-
fying exam marks” (A1, A2, A3 . . . and D1, D2, D3 . . . coding refers to actions and decisions made
in the classroom)

and what shaped teachers’ decision-making in the teaching of modelling? Figure 1

synthesises the process followed with respect to the actions and decisions carried out
in the classroom development by the Teacher-FC. An in-depth analysis showed that
the actions and decisions had an articulating axis: the use of the heuristic tool
analogy. The figure represents the pattern (routine) that the teacher uses in the access
and use 1 of the analogy (section “Modelling and Epistemic Reasoning Processes”).
For the Teacher-FC an epistemic belief is that:
The most important mathematical knowledge is the ways of doing and the specific methods
of working in mathematics. Among this knowledge I highlight the search for patterns,
regularities and mathematical laws, in changing processes, from particularisations and
generic examples. (Teacher-FC Interview 2016)

Although Teacher-FC did not explicit in interviews, the repeated observation of his
mathematical practice in class (example is the MRP presented here, see lesson
episodes related to D1 and A3, A4, A6, A7, A8 in Fig. 1) has led us to claim that:
the patterns to be developed further are the inductive and analogical patterns. The
dominance of analogy is shown as an epistemic reasoning in act (tacit), moment by
moment in the class.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 143

Following we illustrate this diagram describing the lesson episodes and pointing
out the actions and decisions that are produced according to his goals and personal
epistemology.
[A14]: As the factor presented is common in Israel but it is totally unknown in Spain
the teacher decided to present the previous paragraph in two phases: the first of
the two points, asking the students to propose some appropriate correction factors
if the exam was set by them.

What correction factors can we propose to the teacher in order to modify the marks? Express
them in algebraic form and represent them graphically. Analyse the advantages and disad-
vantages of each.

[A2]: Teacher-FC asks the class: What can be said about the subject? After a short
discussion, several correction factors are presented by the students. No student
agrees with the Israeli teacher’ proposed factor. Once formalized, we could
describe them as follows: if x is a mark belonging to the interval [0, 10] and
the mark obtained when correcting x, we can:
Increase all of the marks by the same fixed amount c, y ¼ x +c
Increase each mark by a percentage, r, y ¼ x þ 100 rx
¼ 1 þ 100
r
x
Round the mark to the nearest whole number, which is greater than or equal to the
mark, y ¼ Ent[x] + 1
If the highest mark is the value a, transform this mark into 10 and transform the rest
proportionally, y ¼ 10
a x

As we can see they are unformalized factors: raise all of the marks by a quantity,
raise it by a percentage, round, etc. Expressed like this. Then the teacher asks them to
express them in a more rigorous, formalised form and to represent them graphically,
with the aim, if they had not seen it yet, that they see that they are not analogous to
the Israeli model.
[D1-D3]: Once the advantages or disadvantages of each of them were discussed5 and
facing up to the fact that the students’ answers do not formulate conjecture on
some topic analogous to the Israeli’ model the second part is formulated by the
teacher.
[A4]: The teacher deliberately requests a factor analogous to the Israeli for the
Spanish context.
[A5]: The key is that the marks are between 0 and 10. The teacher asks to the
students how to elaborate and obtain them.

4
[A1], [A2], [A3] . . . and [D1], [D2], [D3] . . . coding refers to actions and decisions made in the
classroom, see Fig. 1.
5
It is omitted in order to not to lengthen the document, but they have a lot of didactic interest; for
example, some images of interval values [0, 10] do not always remain in the interval, so new marks
may be impossible values: for example 12, etc.
144 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Fig. 2 Factor
representation y ¼ x;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
y ¼ 10x

Adapt the correction factor of the teacher to our country, where the marks are between 0 and
10. Express it algebraically and make its graphical representation. Analyse its advantages
and disadvantages with respect to the previous ones.

After a while, the students proposed to the teacher the desired factor (underlying
[D1]) (Fig. 2).
[D2]: As no further clarification is required, the teacher made the class work through
the formulations made by students of the non-formalized analogue topic. Students
used the Graph program for implementing the teacher’s proposal about
comparison.
[A3]: The teacher proposed the comparison to clarify the essence of the factor
sought, indicating that the two functions can be compared, y ¼ x is the factor
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
that does not modify the initially obtained grades, and the factor y ¼ 10x, which
is analogous to that of the Israeli teacher, but adapted to the Spanish context
(underlying [D2]).
[A3]: As we can notice in each of the two functions, the students transformed the
interval [0, 10] into itself, so that the new marks remain values of the interval.
This completes the analysis of the adequacy of the new factor to the Spanish
context.
[D4]: The teacher made the decision to go deeper into the subject, doing so after
studying the new factor, he continued with the following question:

Could we vary this factor to obtain similar ones? Test introducing some change in its
algebraic expression: root index, exponent of 10 or exponent of x. Analyse the characteris-
tics of each one and its suitability.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 145

Fig. 3 Synthesis of factor family graphs

[A2]: With this question the teacher led the class-group back to ask what can be said
about the topic and he poses new questions that could provide the student with the
model to follow in order to achieve it.
Both teacher and students have passed through [D1] and [A3].
Then, although not described by the limits of the extension required in this article,
students have proposed new correction factors.
[A3]: As an expression of the work done by the students the teacher summarised the
results as follows, indicating: the result of which we present in the following
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
graph, in which some of the functions analogous to y ¼ 10x appear (Fig. 3):
[A6]: In the teacher’s proposal of the non-formalized analogue topic it is explained
that:
The expressions of all of them can be grouped into two, representing the two
families of factors:
p
n
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F n ð xÞ ¼ Gn ðxÞ ¼ x 2 ½0; 10, n2N
n
10n1 x 10xn1

And if instead of having marks between 0 and 10, they were of the interval [0, N], it
would have the families of factors:
146 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F n ð xÞ ¼ G n ð xÞ ¼ x 2 ½0; N , n2N
n n
N n1 x N:xn1

After the study of the previous models, we can return to the idea of continuing to
generalize and we can raise another question in the classroom. Here the teacher can
decide whether or not to raise a new question, a new twist to the topic; that is, we can
return from [D4] to [A2].
The teacher returned from [D4] to [A2]: Cyclically returning to [A2] the teacher
did so by the following question:
Reflecting on the expressions of the factors Fn and Gn, find an expression that encompasses
the two, with the condition that all of them become part of a single family of correction
factors.

[D4] and [A7]: In the teacher’s decision lies the idea that students become aware of
how they can group them into a new generalisation of the model, as follows
[D4] and [A7]:
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ni ðxÞ ¼ n 2 N, i 2 f0; 1; 2; . . . ; n  1g
n
N i xni

In this new context, the teacher and students returned to the known factors so far,
verifying that:
– For i¼1, we obtain the factors Gn.
– For i¼n-1, we obtain the factors Fn.
– For i¼n/2, we obtain the factors F2¼G2.
– For i¼0, we obtain the factors Identity y¼x.
But the question can be further expressed if it is considered as the search for
functional models that adapt to the situation and are of the trigonometric,
logarithmic type.
Here there would be successive cycles [D4], [A2], [A3], with different types of
functional models. For each one of them the cycle is repeated in the diagram of
actions and decisions.
We present, by way of example, some of the factors proposed by the students
(Figs. 4 and 5).6
Later, in other solutions given by students we can find other types of trigonomet-
ric models (Figs. 6 and 7).

6
In the first of the graphs a logarithmic function and the reciprocal exponential, which would be
analogous to the logarithmic one, but for the reverse case, in which the marks had to be lowered.
This last question can be worked simultaneously to the one of raising them. The second graph is the
same approach with trigonometric functional models. The norm that is mentioned in the graph refers
to that the functions transforming the interval [0, 10] into itself, a condition that they all must fulfill.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 147

Fig. 4 Exponential and logarithmic factors

[A7]: The teacher continued to encourage students to extend the research project. Let
us note that the teacher’s types of orientations and commentaries, in the analysis
of the student’s solutions, focused on suggestions of improvements for the
attainment of the project objectives. The teacher and the students assessed the
results, proposed essay improvements and suggestions for the elimination of
errors and modification of results, suggested new paths, posed new questions, etc.
For instance, in some of the models presented, the function was not strictly
increasing as it had been demanded until then, this opens up new possibilities,
analysing the meaning and interpreting the consequences that occur in the affected
marks.
One of the most interesting questions that one student posed was thefollowing:
what is the greatest value of p so that the function y ¼ x þ p: 1  cos πx5 continues
to transform the interval [0, 10] into itself. The same can be said for other functions
that have maximum or minimum.
This led the teacher and the students to consider the following model (Fig. 8).
The teacher with the students verified this result. This solution seems incredible,
but it is true: it leaves unchanged marks that are integers, raises the marks of the
148 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Fig. 5 Trigonometric factors adjusted to meet the norm

intervals (0, 1); (2. 3); . . . and lowers those belonging to the intervals (1, 2); (3. 4),
...
In summary, through these episodes it can be verified that the actions and decision
contexts, in which the teacher’s epistemic reasoning emerge, mark the epistemolog-
ical norms that serve as an input for the self-regulated learning of the learner. The
analogy is considered as a heuristic tool to foster student engagement and to analyse
the complexity of a modelling problem. In the sections “Epistemic Beliefs and
Emotions” and “Epistemology and Ontology of Mathematical Knowledge”, we
will specify how this epistemic reasoning of the teacher is affected by his epistemic
beliefs and emotions.

Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions

Teacher-FC uses Polya-style heuristics as a decision-making mechanism for medi-

ations with the students as well as for the establishment of knowledge domains
([D1], [D2], [D3] and [D4] in Fig. 1). In this teacher there is evidence of the
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 149

Fig. 6 Sinusoidal factors to fix centralized and extreme marks

epistemic belief that “plausible patterns describe the logical form of mathematical
reasoning” (e.g. [A4] in Fig. 1). As researchers, the repeated observation of this
teacher’s action would lead us to affirm that “there is a model of competence in
problem solving” based on the good management of interference that can occur in
the coexistence of reasoning that responds to plausible patterns with reasoning that
responds to deductive patterns. As in the way that plausible patterns are made
explicit to students they are being given a tool for their reasoning in problem solving.
Finally, note that the epistemic emotions that Teacher-FC emphasizes are intel-
lectual courage, will, self-confidence and doubt. In his words:
I think learning is really a process of mental change that normally requires someone to treat
the content more than once, in a cyclical way (because the mathematical contents are very
complex, polyhedral, so we cannot apprehend all their faces with only one contact with
them). This implies that learning requires, to the student, intellectual effort and intention to
do so; otherwise you can repeat it memorably, but it is not true learning. (Teacher-FC’s
Interview 2016)

These epistemic beliefs and emotions not only constitute the framework for
decision-making in their practice but also implicitly define which model of compe-
tence is related to “cognitive and affective aspects” in students. In most of the
150 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Fig. 7 Sinusoidal factors “by n” to fix centralized and extreme marks

development of the activity (section “Epistemic Reasoning in Act: Actions and

Decisions in the Classroom”), Teacher-FC kept his students in three “meta-level”
questions: What role does analogy play in modelling processes from the real world
to the mathematical world? What do they learn by using analogy (reasoning, beliefs,
epistemic emotions)? To what extent does mathematical trust depend on intellectual
courage using these tools?

Epistemology and Ontology of Mathematical Knowledge

As it was indicated at the beginning of the diagnosis described here, the personal
epistemology of Teacher-FC has as initial point his behaviour in action, moment to
moment (section “Epistemic Reasoning in Act: Actions and Decisions in the Class-
room”). This analysis shows a unity between subjective and objective knowledge of
mathematics when using inquiry-based teaching. In the creation of “mathematical
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 151

Fig. 8 Sinusoidal factors, What does it get?

experience” in the classroom, the personal epistemology of the teacher is manifested

in the ontological dimension of mathematics, in epistemic beliefs regarding knowl-
edge structure, knowledge stability and sources of knowledge and justification.
Teacher-FC, as a mathematician, has certain beliefs about the ontology of
mathematics that influence his approach to teaching and learning. His position
could be denoted as constructivist in the sense that both truths and mathematical
objects are established by constructive methods. As Ernest (1991) points out the
point of view of constructivists (intuitionists) is that “human mathematical activity is
fundamental in the creation of new knowledge and that both mathematical truths and
the existence of mathematical objects must be established by constructive methods”
(Ernest 1991, p.29).
Following the categories of epistemological beliefs indicated in section “Personal
Epistemology: Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions”: structure, stability and source of
knowledge in interviews this teacher points out:
In relation to the knowledge structure, Teacher-FC indicates for the High School
students that in the mathematical knowledge the most important thing is the knowl-
edge of the mathematical practice and he indicates as specific knowledge of the
teacher: search of patterns, regularities and mathematical laws, in changing process,
152 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

from particularisations and generic examples; to mathematization of situations,

contextualisation. In his own words:
I started thinking that concepts were the gods of mathematical knowledge. After almost
35 years of professional experience as a math teacher, I believe that:
– I have dethroned concepts like the kings of knowledge in my mind. This does not mean
that I do not believe that concepts have no importance, they do, but in a teaching-learning
context with teenagers, concepts are not the most important.
– I have discovered that the most important mathematical knowledge is the ways of doing
things and the specific methods of working in mathematics, as professional mathemati-
cians do. Among this knowledge I think the following deserve to be highlighted: a) the
search for patterns, regularities and mathematical laws, in changing processes, based on
particularisations and generic examples; b) the mathematization of situations (from
formal or academic mathematic to the real or everyday situations), through modelling
(use of models, its construction and analysis of its adequacy and limitations); c) contex-
tualization (from the academic, formal or mathematical to the real or everyday) as a
reverse process to mathematization, through the search for new contexts, register of
representation of ideas and the establishment of connections between contexts and
different ways of representing or contextualizing ideas. (Teacher-FC’s Interview 2016)

In relation to the stability of knowledge, he indicates his evolution in the vision of

mathematical knowledge: the passage of knowledge as something static to some-
thing that is constantly changing. In his expression:
I also thought that what I knew, or thought I knew, was fully settled, but the passage of time
has made me change my mind:
– All knowledge, both emanating from established theories and that emanating from what
we discover day by day, is moldable, modifiable, improvable. And this occurs at all
levels, from elementary school to the areas of university research. And this should be
experienced by our students, otherwise they will not know what mathematics really is.
– It is better for the teacher to convey that knowledge is static, because that allows him to
better control the classroom environment, there are fewer questions, less questioning and
easier to finish a topic, start another, manage everything without leaving our field of
security or our comfort space. The opposite involves living with the uncertainty of the
changes, with the insecurity of uncomfortable questions, with the lack of total control of
the class; and that is very complicated for a teacher to manage. (Teacher-FC’s Interview
2016)

Regarding to the source of mathematical knowledge, Teacher-FC also mentions its

evolution. Going from the management of the same from authorities, whether moral
or scientific, to the idea that this derives from empirical evidence and reasoning. In
his words:
I was always very obedient to my teachers and I believed in them and, in general, in their
professional qualification, until in 3rd year of my degree. In that year I bought Proofs and
Refutations, by I. Lakatos. With this book I realised that there were different conceptions of
what mathematical knowledge is, its structure, its teaching, etc.
Now I think that mathematical knowledge, in entailing discovery and creation, has a
double aspect of “practical” experimentation (in the sense of Miguel de Guzman’s words) in
the generation and elaboration phase, and theoretical idealism (in the sense of formalism and
maximum rigor in reasoning) in the final presentation phase for fellow scientists. As for the
sources of knowledge, I believe that knowledge, from authorities, is necessary, but to make it
meaningful in oneself one has to “experience” it on a personal level: unravel it, break it
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 153

down, analyse it, so that, in this process, we can internalise it, truly learn it, apprehend it and
make it our own.
I always tell students that they do some MRP, those that were worried that they would not
discover something new: do not think that the goal is that you invent something new; if you
take some existing mathematical knowledge, you study it thoroughly, you crumble it. If you
analyse it and you become an expert in it, that for you already means discovering something
new, because those ideas, new to you, that have rooted in your mind and have acquired life,
form a living universe that will amaze and impel you to look for more, to know better . . .
And that is part of the process of discovery and creation. (Teacher-FC’s Interview 2016).

Discussion and Conclusions

This concluding section is based on two core elements: (1) the objectives of the study
and the teaching of modelling and (2) open questions about the conceptualisation of
personal epistemology.
The present study takes a step forward to describe teacher action (decision
making and actions) based on their personal epistemology (1 and 2 research objec-
tive). It was shown that the Teacher-FC, based on their personal epistemology,
prioritises the strategy of analogy as a heuristic tool to foster student engagement and
motivation in the real-world and mathematical world transitions, while also creating
multiple connections, vertical (in mathematics) and horizontal (with the real world
outside of mathematics).
The use of the subjective valuations implicitly expressed by the teacher in the
lesson, through the heuristic tool of the analogy, capture aspects of this teacher’s
deep concern in teaching. Concern that has been explicitly expressed in the epistemic
beliefs regarding the structure of knowledge, the stability of knowledge and the
sources of knowledge alongside its justification, and the epistemic emotion of
intellectual courage (as an emotional rudder to guide judgment and action).
These epistemic beliefs and emotions are something that involve the nature of
their rule of action, i.e., routines of action (in Schoenfeld’s terms). As noted, a
detailed analysis reveals that the Teacher-FC, highly values students who do math
and believe that these have the ability to point out questions as a result of student
feedback. He has a style of teaching based on “routine of interrogation” that consists
in asking questions and giving answers which integrate those given by the students.
This routine is shown in Fig. 1. The routine seems to lead to the conscious level,
since it acts as a component of the cognitive and emotional requirements of the task
required of the students. It is also evident that the actions and decision contexts -in
which the epistemic reasoning and the epistemic beliefs mark the epistemological
norms in the classroom- are intended to achieve the self-regulated learning on the
part of the student. In this regard, the process of epistemic cognition (reasoning and
belief) fosters the establishment of a habit in the teacher’s teaching style: the use of
analogy as a tool for modelling.
Regarding the teaching of modelling, this study demonstrates that the use of
heuristic strategies can be reconstructed within the modelling process. An example
154 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

using an analogy presented here shows how strategic interventions can be created,
based on heuristic strategies. The heuristic strategies can act as a conceptual toolkit
for facilitators to analyse the complexity of a modelling problem, identify the
important steps in the modelling process, and pre-formulate possible strategic
support.
Finally this study raises two open questions; one of them is how to verify the
interaction between personal epistemology, reasoning and decision-making in teach-
ing, “acting in the moment”. It was shown that it was not possible to perceive its
presence as something static, yet rather something incardinated between the past and
the future. The terms “reasoning” and “decision” often imply that the decision-maker
has knowledge: (a) about the situation that requires a decision, (b) about the different
options for action (answers), and (c) about the consequences of each of these options
(results), immediately and the in future. The second question raised relates to the
conceptualisation of personal epistemology, as a multifaceted and integrated per-
spective in which it is necessary to consider cognitive, metacognitive and affective
aspects in contextualised and specific knowledge domains. Studies such as that by
Schoenfeld (2010) or the one now presented involving teachers, make use of
theoretical constructs as operational tools to analyse the decision-making and actions
of teachers. Knowledge, goals and beliefs become resources for practice. These
categories extend the traditional dimensions of the concept of personal epistemology
(certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, source of knowledge, and justi-
fication of knowledge Hofer and Pintrich 1997).
We consider that the concept of personal epistemology allows us to relate the
creation of subjective and objective knowledge in mathematics to the way in which
the individual acts to develop his structures of thought, while the teachers adapt the
manner in which they act in order to favour the mathematical thinking structures of
their students. This suggests that the contexts of “discovery” (creation) and justifi-
cation cannot be completely separated, since justifications, like proofs, are the
product of human creativity as concepts, conjectures and theories. Inquiry-based
teaching identifies all mathematics students as mathematicians, and here we reflect
on a spectrum of potential reasons behind the teacher’s decisions and actions aimed
at developing this creation.

Acknowledgements This study was funded by the research grant Visiting Scholar Fellowship,
University of California in Berkeley, Scholarship “Becas Complutense Del Amo” 2015-16, Spain,
project in collaboration with Dr. Alan Schoenfeld, Elizabeth and Edward Conner Professor of
Education and Affiliated Professor of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley and
by the Spanish Ministry of the Economy and Competitive Affairs under project EDU2013-44047-P.

References

Artigue, M., & Blomhoj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based in mathematics educations.

ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 797–810.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 155

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A

multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1),
13–35.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A
guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69–80.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005). “Filling up” – the problem of independence-preserving teacher
interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the
fourth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education
(pp. 1623–1633). Spain.
Bromme, R. (2005). Thinking and knowing about knowledge. In M. H. G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, &
F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign –grounding mathematics education (pp. 191–201).
New York: Springer.
Crouch, R. M., & Haines, C. R. (2004). Mathematical modelling: Transitions between the real
world and the mathematical model. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science
and Technology, 35, 2.
De la Fuente, C. (2016). Invariantes operacionales matemáticos en los proyectos de investigación
matemática con estudiantes de secundaria. Doctoral Dissertation, Madrid: Complutense Uni-
versity of Madrid.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework
for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen &
F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implica-
tions for practice (pp. 409–434). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Ernest, P. (1990). The relationship between objective and subjective knowledge of mathematics. In
F. Seeger & H. Steinbring (Eds.), The dialogue between theory and practice in mathematics
education (pp. 123–138). Bielefeld: IDM.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of the mathematics education. UK: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,
155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanism of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadov & A. Ortony (Eds.),
Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 197–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The
nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Sampling and introduction to external validity.
In J. A. Gliner, G. A. Morgan, & N. L. Leech (Eds.), Research methods in applied setting: An
integrated approach to design and analysis (pp. 115–133). New York: Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2017). Emotions and heuristics: The state of perplexity in mathematics.
Journal ZDM-Mathematics Education, 49, 323–338.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2018). Chapter 10: Hidden connections, double meanings A mathematical
viewpoint of affective and cognitive interactions in learning. In G. Kaiser, et al. (Eds.) Invited
lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13 Mono-
graphs. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_10.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M., & De la Fuente, C. (2018). Problem-solving and mathematical investigation:
Creative processes, actions and mediations. In N. Amado, S. Carreira, & K. Jones (Eds.),
Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving: A focus on technology,
creativity and affect. New York: Springer.
156 I. M. Gómez-Chacón and C. De la Fuente

Haines, C., & Crouch, R. (2005). Getting to grips with real world contexts: developing research in
mathematical modelling. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1655–1666). Spain.
Hersh, R. (1986). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics. In T. Tymoczko
(Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 9–28). Boston: Birkhauser.
Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An
introduction. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs
about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3–14). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofer, B. K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future
directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller
(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues
(pp. 227–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1),
88–140.
Jaworski, B. (2004). Insiders and outsiders in mathematics teaching development: the design and
study of classroom activity. Research in Mathematics Education, 6, 3–22.
Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as
a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education., Special Issue:
Relations between theory and practice in mathematics teacher Education, 9(2), 187–211.
Jaworski, B. (2014). Unifying complexity in mathematics teaching-learning development: A
theory-practice dialectic. In Y. Li et al. (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple
approaches and practices, advances in mathematics education (pp. 439–458). New York:
Springer.
Leder, G., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics
education? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Maass, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based
learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 887–899.
Maass, J., & Schloeglmann, W. (Eds.). (2009). Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New
research results. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., et al. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical
model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 39, 168–183.
Novick, I. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 398–415.
Op’t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Epistemic dimensions of students’
mathematics-related belief systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2),
57–70.
Otte, M. (1994). Das Formale, das Soziale und das Subjektive. Eine Einführung in die Philosophie
und Didaktik der Mathematik. Franfurt: Suhrkamp. (The Formal, the Social and the Subjective.
An Introduction into Philosophy and Didactics of Mathematics) M. Ottes’s texts have been
translated by Jim Edinberg).
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(p. 259e282). New York: Springer.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning volume I: Induction and analogy in
mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.),
Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its
educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Chapter 6: Exploring Teacher’s Epistemic Beliefs and Emotions in. . . 157

Schoenfeld, A. (2016). Research in mathematics education. Review of Research in Education, 40,

497–528.
Stender, P. (2017). The use of heuristic strategies in modelling activities. Journal
ZDM-Mathematics Education., on line version. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0901-5.
Stillman, G. A. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and
modelling tasks at secondary school. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. A. Stillman
(Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (ICTMA14) (pp. 165–180).
Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V; Springer.
Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections:
Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2),
157–194.
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning
Experiences: The Practice of Happiness
and the Happiness of Practice

Adi Wiezel, James A. Middleton, and Amanda Jansen

Abstract In this chapter, we present a framework for viewing happiness – both as a

product and as a process – as a potentially desirable outcome in mathematics
learning environments. Specifically, we explore how the components of engage-
ment, meaningfulness, and pleasure may work together in the context of mathemat-
ics learners’ experiences to form happiness. We conclude by posing some questions
for future directions, as well some recommendations for research tools that may be
useful for continuing this line of inquiry.

Keywords Positive psychology · Happiness · Engagement · Meaning · Mathematics

learning

There are many valuable outcomes for learning mathematics in school. One that is
often used in research on mathematics teaching, motivation, and affect is achieve-
ment (e.g., Hannula et al. 2014), the outward manifestation of how much mathe-
matics a student has learned. Indeed, achievement, often measured in the form of
grades, performance on standardized tests, and completion of higher coursework, is
an important indicator of the success of mathematics learning experiences. It is
associated with expectations for success and continued interest in, and career
aspirations for, STEM and other mathematically intensive fields (Lazarides and
Watt 2015). However, whereas mathematics achievement in school is a useful
indicator, it is important to keep in mind that it is merely a proxy for success in
mathematics, rather than an end in itself. It is a critical lesson we have learned in the
past 30 years of research: when we consider achievement alone as our primary

A. Wiezel (*) · J. A. Middleton

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
e-mail: Adi.Wiezel@asu.edu
A. Jansen
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 159

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_10
160 A. Wiezel et al.

outcome, we both miss the point of education (see Dewey 2007, reprinted from
Dewey, 1938, for a good summation of the stance we take here), and we oversim-
plify the dynamics of students’ mathematical development, which includes factors
such as their happiness and overall well-being.
To illustrate, consider a hypothetical example of two high school freshmen,
Claire and Ashley. At this stage in her young life, Claire is a set on becoming a
physical therapist, and she fills her schedule with an intensive array of mathematics
and science classes as is required of her future pre-medical major. She studies
arduously for her mathematics exams, at times pulling all-nighters because she
knows that strong grades in her math classes will keep her on track toward her
goal of becoming a physical therapist. She earns high grades in Advanced Placement
courses, and is successful in her first 2 years of college, earning straight A’s. She is
relieved that her major requires her to take only two classes in mathematics—a
subject that conjures up painful memories of the effort she had to put into late-night
study sessions. Claire is not sure she would be able to continue doing well if she had
to take more semesters of math.
Now compare Claire’s experience to Ashley’s. Ashley doesn’t know what she
wants to do professionally, but knows that college will help prepare her for many
options. She takes the default courses in high school, because they are required of all
students, and because she knows they are required for college entrance. As a junior,
she tests into a calculus course, and soon she gets into a rhythm with the subject
matter. As the year goes on, Ashley finds a certain satisfaction in gaining new skills
in solving applied problems, and by the end of the semester, she ends up tutoring
other students taking calculus. In college, Ashley continues to take more math and
statistics classes than required for her major, and, like Claire, she earns straight A’s in
these courses. But, unlike Claire, when Ashley goes to graduate school, she is
excited to learn more about mathematics and statistics.
Note that in each of these student’s cases, the criterion of achievement was met—
both Claire and Ashley earned straight A’s in their math courses and each took
courses beyond what was required in high school. However, we would say that
Ashley had better and more productive mathematics engagement, because her long-
term affective response to mathematics learning was an approach response as
opposed to Claire’s avoidance response (see Middleton et al. 2017 for a discussion
of productive engagement). The point we are making is that if two students can have
the same level of achievement, but have qualitatively different approaches towards
mathematics in their personal and professional lives, then achievement is only one
limited indicator of what we mean by success in mathematics.
The anecdote above suggests that success in mathematics also involves features
like persistence—one’s continuation in mathematics despite encountering difficulty,
intrinsic motivation—one’s desire to work on mathematics for internal reasons,
perceived instrumentality of the subject matter—one’s sense that mathematics is
useful to one’s goals, and self-efficacy—one’s belief that one is capable of
succeeding. Moreover, much research shows that these variables interact signifi-
cantly in predicting students’ achievement, continued mathematics course taking,
and future career choices (Middleton et al. 2016). Therefore, considering the quality
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 161

of the experience that students undergo as they build their mathematical selves, as
well as the habits and dispositions toward mathematics that they learn, is fundamen-
tal to the understanding of what is meant by “success” at the individual, curricular,
and policy level.
We are tempted to add to the list of potential positive outcomes of mathematics
education such variables as retention in mathematically-intensive subject matter, use
of mathematics after graduation, and earning a satisfactory salary. These additional
outcomes could lend a more complete assessment of the success of mathematics
learning experiences. However, they too are only proxies, and lead to more ques-
tions—for example, how much mathematics usage after graduation is “enough,” for
whom, and to what end(s)? How many mathematics courses should one take before
we consider a person’s collective mathematical experiences successful? although
these additional criteria are useful and important, we suggest a broader approach to
thinking about mathematics learning experiences to help contextualize why we
might care about metrics like these in the first place.
Specifically, we take the view that the goal of education, including mathematics
education, should be to give students the tools to lead productive and fulfilled lives.
These, finally, are end goals. We require students to take mathematics as a part of
compulsory education for nine or more years of their lives so that they can become
productive and develop a sense of fulfillment. The variables we have already posited
each point to one or both of these goals: productivity being both the ability and
inclination of the person to learn and use mathematics for some greater good
(Ashley’s tutoring for example); and fulfillment being the affective response to
one’s collective experiences (Claire’s reticence to continue mathematics being an
example of poor fulfillment, mathematically speaking).
Because this line of reasoning echoes the work of Aristotle, who defined his term
Eudaimonia (“happiness”) as both living life, and doing, well (Aristotle and Brown
2009), one useful way to think about the end goal of mathematics education is in
terms of happiness—both in the instrumental sense (productivity), and in the
personal sense (fulfillment). In the sections below, we detail the case for thinking
about happiness in the context of mathematics education, discuss three relevant
components of happiness and how they may relate to—and interact in—mathematics
learning experiences, and we discuss exciting new directions in this line of thinking.
As we progress, we address this fundamental question of mathematics education,
“what exactly is the role of mathematics, and more specifically, the mathematical
learning experiences one undergoes throughout compulsory education, in contrib-
uting to one’s happiness?”

Why Happiness?

To situate our discussion of happiness and its role in thinking about mathematics
learning experiences, we begin with a bit of history. The philosophy of happiness has
a rich historical tradition, and has often been conceptualized in one of two different
162 A. Wiezel et al.

ways: Hedonism (literally, “pleasure-ism”, or “sweet-ism”), the philosophical stance

that happiness is an intentional state that is directed toward the emotional experience
of pleasure and away from the emotional experience of pain; and Eudaimonia
(literally, “good spirit”), the stance that happiness is achieving the best conditions
possible for a human being—not only pleasure, but also virtue, morality, and
meaningfulness (Sidgwick 1907). More recently, Ryan and Deci (2001) described
eudaimonic happiness as the development of human capabilities. In paraphrasing
Waterman (1993), for example, Ryan and Deci describe eudaimonic happiness as
“when people’s life activities are most congruent or meshing with deeply held values
and are holistically or fully engaged,” and note that, compared to hedonic
approaches, eudaimonic ones are “more strongly related to activities that afforded
personal growth and development” (Ryan and Deci 2001, p. 146). Learning math-
ematics, therefore, may be described (for some people, in some circumstances) in
these terms.
But our contemporary view of happiness is more than potential for self-
actualization. It also involves affective responses such as pleasure and satisfaction
which arise in the moment of learning, which also reflect on the “hedonic” qualities
of those moments (Ryan and Deci 2001). In an educational sense, then, to be happy
is to learn and grow in one or more domains (such as mathematics), to experience
pleasure while learning, and/or to reflect with satisfaction upon one’s long term
educational experiences. Learners can have happy experiences while learning and
doing mathematics and/or take happiness away from the process of learning and
doing mathematics. Importantly, frustration at a math problem in the moment need
not obviate the possibility of experiencing happiness in mathematics over the long
haul—the very same math problems can be later construed as meaningful or
pleasantly challenging in a way that closely aligns with the affective dimension of
eudaimonic happiness.
We consider happiness, with its self-actualization and affective dimensions, as
valuable for describing mathematics learning experiences because it offers us two
opportunities. First, it offers us the opportunity to leverage happiness in terms of the
learning outcomes it gives us. For example, specific aspects of well-being, such as
“positive” emotions, have been associated with better academic outcomes. Certain
positive emotions, for example, encourage students to broaden the way they
solve problems by widening the scope of their attention, which may, in turn, make
them more successful in their academic pursuits (Fredrickson 1998, 2001; Valiente
et al. 2012). Similarly, positive emotions such as joy and hope have been correlated
with increased levels of self-efficacy, interest, and effort in testing settings, which
can contribute to increased performance (Pekrun et al. 2004). Finally, happiness
has also been linked with increased creativity and goal-relevant activity
(Lyubomirsky et al. 2005).
Thus, in this sense, happiness can be thought of as a product that gives us certain
desirable outcomes. The benefit to considering happiness relative to, or in addition
to, other outcomes such as achievement is that happiness can make us reconsider
benchmarks for some of those other outcomes. So, returning to our earlier question
about how to know how much mathematics persistence is “enough”—happiness can
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 163

offer us a criterion against which to judge our answers: does this amount of
mathematics experience contribute to this person’s happiness (e.g., Claire’s produc-
tivity and fulfillment)? In this respect, happiness can not only help us attain certain
desirable outcomes, but also offer us a way to assess the benefit of those outcomes.
The second opportunity that thinking about happiness in the context of school
mathematics offers us is treating mathematics education as a sort of practice or
process of happiness. If it is our interest to treat education as a means by which
students can develop the tools to lead productive and fulfilled lives, then it makes
sense to consider the ways in which mathematics education can also serve as a
focused template for such happiness, one in which students can be exposed to what
the process of happiness might look like, so that they may be able to experience it,
extend it to future courses, and replicate it in other domains of their lives, such as in
their careers and personal pursuits. This type of thinking thus treats the mathematics
classroom as a purveyor of two kinds of content: the mathematical content itself, and
a template for how to perform happiness while learning and doing mathematics.
What does such a performance of happiness entail? We think a useful definition
emerges from Seligman et al.’s (2009) characterization of happiness as an experi-
ence that is (1) engaged, (2) meaningful, and (3) pleasant. As suggested earlier, this
is not to say that all mathematical experiences are meaningful or pleasant, nor that a
person should be fully engaged in all mathematical experiences to be happy. Rather,
reflection upon one’s collective experiences should convey an overall sense of
connection with the experiences within which one is immersed. These experiences
should somehow be greater as a whole, helping the person develop eudaimonic
potential, and for the most part, this whole should also be enjoyable. We will address
each of the three tenets of happiness (engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure) in
turn, and discuss how we think they may apply to mathematics learning environ-
ments specifically.

Engagement

First, we focus on engagement. Seligman and colleagues treat the engagement

component of happiness as complete absorption in a task that that requires the
application of a high degree of one’s skills and talents (Seligman et al. 2009). This
view is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, in which one feels a loss
of time and emotion, and becomes one with the task at hand (Csikszentmihalyi 1990;
Seligman et al. 2009). These characterizations consider the practice of happiness to
be synonymous with optimal experience. The extent to which the psychological
experience of the student embodies this absorption or flow is an indicator of the
happiness they feel. Applying this to a curricular context, the activities that give rise
to optimal experiences must be designed to promote active involvement and skill
use. Indeed, Delle Fave and Massimini (2005) show that repetitive, passive, or
unstructured tasks rarely promote optimal experience.
164 A. Wiezel et al.

However, engagement in the context of a classroom also includes components not

directly linked to the task, such as attending to the ideas of other students, or to
interactions with the teacher. Accordingly, we reconceptualize engagement as a
relationship between the learner and her or his learning environment (see Middleton
et al. 2017). Consider the example of a student named Connor, who is learning about
polynomials in his algebra class. Connor’s teacher asks the class which terms in the
expression “3x2 + 2x + 2 + 3x” can be combined. Connor raises his hand and
suggests that “3x2 and 3x” can be combined because by the distributive property,
3x2 + 3x ¼ 3x(x + 1). The teacher asks if there are any other answers. This response
is generally interpreted as meaning that a student’s answer is incorrect. Subse-
quently, Connor feels frustrated and confused as he realizes his answer is considered
wrong, but not why it is wrong. He turns to his classmate, who points out that
Connor should look at the degree of the terms, not the coefficients. Connor quickly
says “oh,” raises his hand, and says “never mind, it’s 2x and 3x, since the exponents
need to match, not the numbers before them.” Connor’s teacher nods and Connor
beams with pride.
We characterize such engagement as dynamic, for although environmental con-
straints direct students’ behavior (as in Connor needing to raise his hand before
speaking, or being able to ask his peer for help after the teacher’s tacit evaluation of
his response) and their affective appraisal of their experiences (as in Connor’s
frustration at his initial response being wrong without meaningful feedback), these
behaviors and feelings also change the environment by establishing social roles and
norms. For example, Connor’s decision to correct his initial response is indicative of
a social space in which self-correction is valued, transforming his initial emotional
response from frustration to triumph. This dynamic process thus involves the
emergence of practices that ultimately become “mathematics” for the student.
Mathematical perseverance, for example, is shaped by such triumphant resolutions
to challenging, even frustrating circumstances, and over time, it can become a habit
of mind that is fully part and parcel of the student’s conception of what mathematics
is and her or his role in it.
Also, because it is a relationship, engagement can be similarly thought of as
healthy and productive, like Ashley coming to enjoy mathematics and seek out more
experiences with it, or counterproductive, where the student may become turned off
by mathematics and seek to avoid it in the future. Connor’s situation could have
gone either way, depending upon the norms in which his self-correction was
handled.
Lastly, we can see from this example that Connor’s engagement was simulta-
neously cognitive, behavioral, affective, and social. We now turn to the dynamics of
the relationships among these aspects of engagement.
The broad community of researchers focusing on school engagement typically
divide engagement into three domains: behavioral, cognitive, and affective
(Fredericks et al. 2004). To this triad, we add a fourth component: social engagement
(Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2015). Behavioral engagement concerns the overt effort
students put forth in mathematics activities, and the observable actions they proffer.
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 165

For example, Connor showed behavioral engagement by raising his hand to respond
to the teacher’s question. Cognitive engagement involves self-regulation strategies,
and the direction of attention and memory resources to the activity at hand. Connor
concentrated on his teacher’s question, and later mentally reworked his solution,
consolidating it into an effective rule for combining like terms. Affective engage-
ment involves the feelings individuals have about their interpretation of their
involvement, and ranges from emotions as such curiosity and inspiration to frustra-
tion and anxiety. Connor experienced frustration at getting his answer wrong, and
then pride when correcting his previous understanding. Finally, social engagement
concerns the degree to which students attend to one another (and the teacher),
coordinate their actions with others, build relationships with one another, and
generally conform to the sociomathematical norms and practices of the classroom.
Connor checking with his classmate, accepting proffered assistance, and
volunteering a corrected response illustrate the influence that these social variables
have on the cognitive, behavioral, and affective manifestations of his experience.
Although Connor’s example showed one possible experience of engagement, a
given moment of engagement can manifest itself in diverse mental activities and
overt behaviors, such as attention, cognition, effort, and affect in varying combina-
tions in each of the four domains of engagement. For example, Seligman’s and
Czikszentmihalyi’s conceptualizations of flow relate to each of these factors in a
particular way. Flow consists of focused attention and deep cognitive processing
(cognitive), high effort (behavioral), and joy or elation (affective).
Moreover, although social engagement has been under-researched in the theory
of optimal experience, some researchers have posited that the use of complex and
socially meaningful activities to encourage optimal experiences in education may be
important for encouraging healthy social development (Delle Fave and Massimini
2005). For example, students’ willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors, such as
helping peers, can serve as a hook to pull students into engaging more deeply with
academic content (Jansen 2006).
Take the case of Allen. Allen was a seventh-grade student who spoke of being
anxious about sharing his thinking in front of his peers. He worried about being in
front of everyone in class. When he was motivated to participate, it was at times
when he noticed a peer could benefit from his help. One way he saw that he could
help others was when he perceived that someone with a correct solution could also
solve the problem correctly another way, and he was then willing to share his
solution strategy. Additionally, Allen tended to notice if a friend was struggling,
and he would feel a sense of responsibility to help him figure out the mathematics.
These motivations to provide support to peers tended to override Allen’s initial
nervousness about sharing his thinking with others. Through the process of articu-
lating mathematical thinking to help a peer, Allen was able to reflect upon—and
potentially improve—his own thinking as well. As such, mathematical engagement
may then “spread” as students interact with each other, sharing and appropriating
practices in the context of their social engagement.
166 A. Wiezel et al.

Meaningfulness

Second, we address meaningfulness. Meaning(fulness) is conceptualized by

Seligman and colleagues as the dual process of knowing one’s strengths and skills
and applying them to serve something greater than the self, be it a cause, or a
connection to others (Seligman et al. 2009; Seligman 2002). A teacher’s preparation
of a lesson plan that will help his students learn important skills, a journalist’s final
touches on a breaking news story vital to her community, and a clinician’s work on a
treatment aimed to remedy throat cancer are each meaningful in this respect. In each
of these cases, meaningfulness involves evaluating one’s capabilities and matching
them both to one’s goals as well as to the environment at hand. As with our definition
of engagement, we offer a more focused definition of meaningfulness as it relates to
the mathematics learning environment. But here, we must first distinguish between
meaning and meaningfulness.
Meaning is defined as the gist one gets from an activity, and its place in the larger
scheme of conceptions that one holds about the subject. As such, meaning can be
thought of as a network of associations among ideas that one gains about mathe-
matics content, one’s role in the social dynamics of the mathematics classroom, the
normative practices in which one engages, and the skills one employs in developing
some kind of gist as a takeaway for later recall. Meaning is individual in that it is
unique for each student in the classroom community, yet it is framed and shaped by
the social norms of the class, and by the material and historical norms that are seen as
mathematically important in the greater community (Voigt 1994).
By contrast, we think a useful definition of meaningfulness in the context of
mathematics learning experiences is an individual’s subjective conception of the
value or weight that they put on the meaning abstracted from their experience. Each
of the different domains of engagement in the mathematics learning environment—
cognitive, behavioral, social, and affective—contribute value (positive and/or neg-
ative) to this assessment. In other words, experiences can have meaning (e.g., one
can get the gist of the math), and/or be meaningful (e.g., the experience can be seen
as instrumental to the individual’s future aspirations).
One helpful way to conceptualize meaningfulness of this sort is to begin by
imagining of a normalized linear equation in which each variable (xi1, xi2, xi3, and
xi4) corresponds to a different domain of engagement (cognitive, behavioral, social,
and affective). The value of each of these variables ranges from 0 to 1, and together,
they sum to 1 to capture the entire space of engagement. In this analogy, the beta
weight for each of the xi variables (βi1, βi2, βi3, and βi4) corresponds to the unique
proportion of value that a person ascribes to each domain of engagement. All of
these beta weights can sum to 1, indicating that they work together to explain all of
the value one can place on a given experience.
Both the overall and the individual values can vary from student to student due to
differences in prior experiences. So, for example, it is possible for Jill to place a
higher subjective weight on cognitive engagement in a mathematics task, and a
lower subjective weight on social engagement in the classroom. Jill may spend more
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 167

time focusing on her bell work than chatting with her neighbors. However, it is
possible for Jill’s classmate, Olivia, to instead place a higher subjective weight on
social engagement, and a lower subjective weight on cognitive engagement. Olivia
might find it to be more important to learn about the newest class gossip than attend
closely to the morning bell work. Of course, because the process of assigning
meaning is part of a dynamical system, it is unlikely that these variables form a
perfect linear combination, however, they do contribute differential information,
which may be of differential importance to the meaningfulness of an experience
given prior learning and current goals.
Meaningfulness also varies within individuals over time. For example, at the
beginning of the semester, John may view cognitive and behavioral engagement as
meaningful, but as he struggles to attain high marks in his class, he may revise his
assessment and assign social engagement more value. Such adjustments can also
occur across shorter periods of time, and are often contingent on the goals that
students have and can attain in a classroom. For example, in his case study of goal
development in a vocationally geared high school in the mid-Atlantic region of the
U.S., Webel (2013) found that whereas engagement behaviors are relatively stable at
the group level, they vary considerably at the individual level based on the personal
goals of each student. Moreover, the expressions of each student’s goals, such as
those related to self-worth preservation (which may be thought of as being related to
affective engagement) and achievement, were displayed differently depending on
whether they appeared to match the group’s goals. This suggests that individuals
consider their individual goals in conjunction with the environmental constraints
present, and evaluate the meanings and behaviors that are available to them in the
situation.
In addition, there can be a recursive relationship between engagement, outcomes,
and meaning, which may stabilize over time within a class, but which may also
become volatile under new rules and new roles afforded by different classes and
different content. Meaningfulness can be in flux even within a given math classroom
because instructors and students interactively develop an understanding of what
constitutes a meaningful contribution. More specifically, the existence of meaningful
engagement can be largely contingent on the subject matter being discussed. For
example, if offering a “different approach” to a problem is generally considered
valuable in a given math class (see Connor’s example above), this may require
students to invoke different skills and competencies when solving a geometry
problem than when solving an algebra problem later on in the semester (see Yackel
and Cobb 1996 for how sociomathematical norms appear in a second grade class-
room). Students can either view such a shift as a valuable opportunity as they are
invited to solve mathematics in ways that make sense to them, or it can make
students uncomfortable if they are used to waiting for an authority figure such as
their teacher to demonstrate a solution path. Note that the first interpretation may
lead students to view cognitive and behavioral engagement as more important in the
class, whereas the second may lead students to reduce the perceived importance of
cognitive and behavioral engagement. Accordingly, meaning can be unstable and
recursive in math education environments.
168 A. Wiezel et al.

Pleasure

Third, we discuss pleasure, a topic rarely thought of as pertaining to mathematics

learning. It is particularly telling that, in a special issue of Educational Studies in
Mathematics (Zan et al. 2006), devoted to the study of affect and meta-affect, the
words pleasure and joy were mentioned only once—in the introductory article
merely as examples of emotions. None of the other nine articles, by the most
respected researchers in the field, even mentioned the words pleasure, joy, or
happiness, let alone provided an analysis of their role in mathematics learning.
This is puzzling given the powerful role these emotions play in human behavior,
unless these emotions are somehow culturally divorced from our thinking as it
relates to mathematics. This is a clear hole in our understanding, and a potentially
rich area of inquiry, particularly if we are to leverage and promote positive emotions
in the design of mathematics learning experiences.
We begin to suggest ways to address this lacuna by focusing in on pleasure.
Seligman and colleagues describe pleasure in terms of positive emotions, such as joy
or contentment (Seligman et al. 2009). As with the previous two components of
happiness, we specify our definition of pleasure so that it is useful within the context
of mathematics education. These moments of pleasure in doing mathematics
can be experienced as magical flashes of insight (Barnes 2000), experiences of
making beautiful connections, and appreciation for the aesthetic of mathematics
(Sinclair 2001).
However, it is important to point out that not all mathematics experiences are
immediately joyful or contentment-inducing. Indeed, oftentimes, learning in math-
ematics is marked by considerable effort and frustration (Goldin 2014). Neverthe-
less, as suggested previously, this does not eliminate the possibility that these very
same frustrating experiences can be pleasurable when viewed from a meta-affective
structure such as, “I am really into this.” When operating within a flow-like belief
structure, effort can be seen as a challenge to overcome, and as an opportunity to test
one’s abilities, rather than as a signal to disengage. These attributions of challenge,
then, invoke positive emotions that result from an appraisal of the cognitive diffi-
culty of a task, which in turn defines the whole of the experience as pleasure-
inducing (see Goldin et al. 2011).
In this sense, we can think about pleasure in the context of mathematics as not just
an in-the-moment emotional response to the conditions of learning, but as meta-
affect that stabilizes students’ momentary frustrations and triumphs, and helps them
evaluate the experience as positive or negative (DeBellis and Goldin 1997, 2006;
Goldin 2002, 2014; Gomez-Chacon 2000). Meta-affect in this context is thought of
as emotions (or more rightly, emotional attributions) about other emotions or
cognitions. Just as hiking a mountain can be simultaneously painful and enjoyable,
whereas a victory won through dishonesty can be shameful, meta-affect can trans-
form an experience in a way that might not otherwise be expected.
Of course, pleasure, as a meta-affective attribution is tied to all the previous
experiences of the learner, many of them mathematical, as a kind of emotional
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 169

summary—a means of evaluating the potential emotional content of future tasks.

Thus, pleasure is projective, enabling the learner to approach situations similar to
those in which they have previously experienced flow-like emotions. Meta-affect is
also, therefore, closely tied to students’ mathematical self-concept (or, at the very
least compared to it) as well as to their mathematical identity.
We think another useful way of situating pleasure comes from Veenhoven
(2011). Veenhoven’s model has two key variables that classify satisfaction into
four types: Pleasure, Domain Satisfaction, Peak Experience (flow), and finally Life
Satisfaction, which he equates with happiness. The key distinctions among these
forms of satisfaction deal with, on the one hand, whether the satisfaction is focused
on just one part of one’s life, or on one’s life as a whole. On the other hand, one’s
satisfaction also depends upon whether the feeling is perceived as transitory or
enduring. Thus, pleasure, to Veenhoven, is satisfaction about short-term events
that are perceived to be transitory and not enduring—like the pleasure one receives
in solving a particularly frustrating algebra problem, for example. Domain satisfac-
tion pieces these pleasurable moments together, filtering out the non-pleasurable,
over the whole of one’s experiences in a given domain. Thus, continually finding
pleasure in solving particularly frustrating algebra problems might provide one with
a feeling of satisfaction regarding one’s experiences in the domain of mathematics:
an enduring disposition related to mathematical intimacy (DeBellis 1998). Peak
Experience is encountered when a moment creates a lasting impact: an epiphany.
Finally, Life Satisfaction or happiness, occurs when the whole of one’s experiences
are evaluated as pleasurable in an enduring manner. This might be thought of as
consonant with Goldin and colleagues’ (DeBellis and Goldin 1997, 2006) charac-
terization of meta-affect: seeing the collective experience one has undergone and
deriving pleasure from the feelings they have produced on the whole.
Thus, we think of pleasure in terms of positive meta-affect related to mathematics
learning experiences in a way that classifies the overall affect related to mathematics
learning in a favorable light; this favorable disposition is then seen as an enduring
quality of mathematics experiences. In the math classroom, pleasure as meta-affect
can transform an otherwise frustrating and tedious problem set into a prideful
illustration of what one has already learned. Note that pleasure in this sense is
somewhat different than meaningfulness. Pleasure is an emotional attribution or
evaluation, whereas meaningfulness is the subjective value we place on a specific
aspect of engagement.

How Do the Three Components Interact to Form Happiness

in Mathematics Learning Environments?

We find it fitting to begin the discussion of how the components of happiness might
interact by illustrating with a mathematical model. Earlier, we suggested that the
relationship between engagement and meaningfulness for a given individual (e.g.,
170 A. Wiezel et al.

Joann) is akin to a normalized linear combination in which each of the four

components of her engagement (cognitive, behavioral, social, and affective) serve
as independent variables (xi1, xi2, xi3, and xi4) which can range from 0 to 1 (e.g.,
“how much does Joann, as a mathematics learner, engage cognitively or socially?”),
and the coefficients (βi1, βi2, βi3, and βi4) which sum to 1, correspond to meaning-
fulness, or the subjective value a person places on each (e.g., “does Joann put more
subjective weight on cognitive or affective forms of engagement?”). We now
elaborate upon this model by including an individual’s pleasure (as quality of
meta-affect) as well, in terms of a constant, pi, that can take a value between 0 and
1 (e.g., “how favorably does Joann evaluate the overall mathematics experience?”).
Multiplying (βi1xi1 + βi2xi2 + βi3xi3 + β4ixi4) by the constant pi thus allows Joann’s
meta-affect, or her overall degree of positive emotional attribution of a mathematics
learning experience, to influence the meaningfulness (beta weights) that she applies
to each of the four components of engagement (cognitive, behavioral, social, and
affective). Notably, because this equation is normalized, happiness too takes a value
from 0 to 1, reflecting the overall percentage of happiness present for a given person
in a mathematics learning environment (“Is Joann unhappy (0% happy?) or fully
happy (100% happy?”), or somewhere in between?”).

hi ¼ pi ðβi1 Xi1 þβi2 Xi2 þβi3 Xi3 þβi4 Xi4 Þ

where hi, happiness, is a scalar, referring to the degree of happiness a given

individual (i) experiences in the mathematics learning environment; p is an individ-
ual (i’s) positive meta-affect; Xi refers to each of the four components of engagement
for an individual (i) (Xi1 ¼ cognitive engagement, Xi2 ¼ behavioral engagement,
Xi3 ¼ social engagement, and Xi4 ¼ affective engagement), representing vectors that
correspond to complex thoughts, behaviors, social interactions, and feelings/emo-
tions; and finally, the coefficients βi represent a given individual’s subjective
meaning associated with each corresponding component of engagement.
Of course, we do not think this model is sufficient to capture the whole story. For
example, it is important to note that each of the vectors of values representing
engagement interact with the other vectors in various combinations, which may
themselves vary considerably over time. Moreover, in this linear analogy, correla-
tions and multicollinearities undoubtedly must be present. But it is even more likely
that the real relationship among these variables contains even more complexity—
feedback loops, sensitivity to initial values, and emergent phenomena that are, as yet,
not fully captured in the literature.
For example, it appears likely that both the process of engagement in each of the
four domains and the outcomes of that engagement may lead to evaluations which
influence how much value (how much weight) learners give to each of those
domains. In other words, engagement must influence meaningfulness. The more a
student engages in mathematics learning, the more they are likely to see connections
with other aspects of their life and learning, and to view mathematics as meaningful
(either positively and negatively meaningful). Similarly, the meaning we place on
the various domains of engagement may influence how much attention, and in turn,
effort, learners devote to each of those domains. The four different forms of
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 171

Fig. 1 Process model of some of proposed relationships between engagement, meaningfulness,

and pleasure

engagement, too, may be related to one another; for example, cognitive and behav-
ioral engagement are undoubtedly linked—the more a student pays attention in class,
the more they may complete their assignments, and affective and social engagement
too are likely connected—the more comfortable a student feels with the material and
their classmates, the more likely they may be to help their peers.
Moreover, it appears that pleasure—positive meta-affect in a mathematics learn-
ing environment—may serve to inform what kinds of things learners view as
meaningful. When pleasure (as meta-affect) is high, it may reinforce the existing
meaning structures; when pleasure is low, it may encourage learners to re-evaluate
which aspects of engagement they should most value (and the literature on situa-
tional interest bears this out—see Rotgans and Schmidt 2014). Finally, it is unclear
what role affective engagement may play in informing pleasure. For example, it is
possible that this type of engagement may inform pleasure more directly than
behavioral or cognitive engagement, because of the affective nature of the appraisal
process that is involved in pleasure (see Fig. 1). Nevertheless, these relationships
remain to be tested empirically.
In examining happiness, we have conjectured that it has both process and
outcome manifestations. It is important to note that we have emphasized the process
manifestations here, because they are the levers by which we can influence the
engagement of students to be more worthwhile in terms of the pleasure and meaning
they may receive from their engagement. Through such leverage, we suspect that the
cognitive engagement of students will become more productive, deep, and tied to
their behavioral, social, and affective counterparts such that students can say (at least
once and a while), “I was happy,” when referring to their mathematics experiences.
Through this, we feel that the outcomes of students’ experiences, their sense of
fulfillment, and their exposure to mathematical practices as an example of what the
172 A. Wiezel et al.

process of happiness might look like can lead to increased achievement and future
engagement in mathematics, and to future life success.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Just like considering happiness in the context of the mathematics classroom requires
us to expand beyond traditional metrics of achievement, answering questions about
it also requires us to broaden our methodological toolkit. Indeed, questions about
happiness, engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure in mathematics learning envi-
ronments involve a variety of time scales, actors, and behavioral and affective
dimensions. Addressing each of these components thus requires researchers to
commit to measuring student learning experiences at various points in time, and to
recording students’ overt behaviors and affect, as well as their internal interpretations
of their experiences. Moreover, because of the critical role the social setting plays in
“spreading” happiness, our methods must capture the roles of various influential
persons in the mathematics environment (e.g., instructors, learners, classmates). This
necessarily invites a mixed-methods approach (see Middleton et al. 2017 for a
useful review).
Methodologically, the arsenal that a researcher has at her or his disposal is
immense. But a few techniques rise to the top in terms of providing exceptional
utility to get at the process of engagement (what we have termed in-the-moment
engagement). The first of these is Experience Sampling Methodology. This method
focuses on experiences as the unit of analysis by sampling students’ experiences
over time. This is typically done by paging students through some mobile device at
random intervals during their mathematics experiences. The students would then, as
soon as practicable, take a short survey about the experiences they are having right
now. Over time, the characteristics of those experiences can then be determined
empirically, both in an external frame (describing the tasks, social settings, and
interactions students are having), and more importantly, in an internal frame
(describing the growth of emotional responses, affective interpretations, and other
interpretations of the lived experiences of the students). Shernoff and colleagues’
(2016) study of high school engagement used this method, along with classroom
observation and other instruments. Using these combined methods, they were able to
show that the presence of environmental challenge simultaneously with environ-
mental support for motivational, relational, and social/emotional facets of students’
experiences improve their engagement and related affective outcomes.
Observation of learning experiences is a second critical method that should be
considered in any study of in-the-moment facets of engagement. Protocols which
have been productive for capturing the characteristics of experiences that promote
engagement have recorded (a) opportunities for belongingness, (b) the degree of
competence and autonomy provided, and (c) meaningfulness of learning (e.g.,
Turner et al. 2014). These components have typically been compared with measures
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 173

of student engagement: the cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral indices that
assess long-term engagement with mathematics.
In our current NSF-funded project, Secondary Mathematics in-the-moment Lon-
gitudinal Study, our team is beginning to approach some of these questions by taking
both in-the moment and longitudinal approaches to collecting such data. For exam-
ple, we use Experience Sampling Methods to measure, longitudinally, the different
dimensions of ~5000 students’ engagement in high school-level mathematics tasks,
and simultaneously, we record both their and their teachers’ views on the instruc-
tional practices that afford and constrain their engaged behavior at the time of
learning (Middleton and Jansen 2017). ESM prompts are pushed to mobile devices
at the end of experiences pre-identified by the teacher over the course of three
consecutive days, at which time the students provide responses to prompts assessing
facets of motivation, social and group behavior, affect, and cognition. Copies of the
classroom tasks and student work are uploaded with participants’ responses. Addi-
tionally, project researchers video record classroom behaviors with which to situate
and provide explanatory context for participants’ responses.
But, moments taken out of the ongoing stream of experiences over time have little
meaning for either the consolidation of concepts and skills for performance, or for
the development of satisfaction and other indices of happiness (Veenhoven 2011).
Accordingly, our project is examining the long-term effects of engaged mathemat-
ical experiences (and relatively-unengaged experiences, as the case may be) for 2 full
years of high school. From these analyses, we will be building a model of the short-
term and long-term effects of instructional practices, as well as the relationship
among motivational and engagement-related variables that impact the learner’s
sense of efficacy and well-being, and using this to answer questions like the ones
we posed above.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we considered the benefits of moving beyond traditional indices of

success in the classroom (such as achievement) to focus on a measure of something
bigger: happiness. Although happiness may not be the first word to come to the mind
of many in the context of mathematics classrooms, we think it useful both in the
instrumental sense (productivity), and in the personal sense (fulfillment). As, incor-
porating happiness into mathematics learning environments would not only allow
students to learn better, it would also provide them with a template for the process of
happiness—a template they could take with them and apply to other domains of their
lives.
We view happiness in the mathematics context as consisting of three components:
engagement, meaningfulness, and pleasure. In our view, engagement consists of a
dynamic relationship between a learner and her or his learning environment.
Engagement manifests itself in the form of mental activities and overt behaviors in
four different domains: cognitive, behavioral, affective, and social. Meaningfulness,
174 A. Wiezel et al.

then, is the subjective weight or importance that a learner places on each of the four
dimensions of engagement. Finally, pleasure is defined as meta-affect, or the
learner’s affective appraisal of the whole mathematics learning experience.
This framework poses a number of intriguing possibilities, including unpacking
the relationships between various forms of engagement, and offering avenues for
meaningful and long-term mathematics engagement. Unpacking these possibilities
requires mixed methodological approaches, which involve studying mathematics
classrooms across various dimensions, time frames, and persons. Ultimately, we
hope to discover those aspects of the moment which provide (inter)personal con-
nection, meaningfulness, and some modicum of pleasure such that interventions
such as tasks, curricular sequences, teaching strategies, and tools can be designed to
improve the probability that a student might begin to see mathematics as worthwhile
in its own right, and instrumental to their future fulfillment. We invite others to join
us in the exciting practice of learning more about how to add happiness into the
equation of mathematics learning experiences.

References

Aristotle, & Brown, L. (Ed). (2009). The Nicomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barnes, M. (2000). “Magical” moments in mathematics: Insights into the process of coming to
know. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 33–43.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
DeBellis, V. A. (1998). Mathematical intimacy: Local affect in powerful problem solvers. In
Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 435–440).
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domain in mathematical problem solving. In
E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Lahti, Finland (Vol. 2, pp. 209–216). Helsinki:
University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving:
A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 131–147.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy.
European Psychologist, 10(4), 264–274.
Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state
of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3516061.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology:
Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(3), 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The American
Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. Leder,
E. Pehkonen, & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(pp. 59–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chapter 7: Mathematics Learning Experiences: The Practice of Happiness. . . 175

Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem

solving. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions in education
(pp. 391–414). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement
structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM, 43(4), 547.
Gomez-Chacon, I. M. (2000). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 43, 149–168.
Hannula, M. S., Bofah, E. A., Tuohilampi, L., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2014). A longitudinal analysis
of the relationship between mathematics-related affect and achievement in Finland. In Pro-
ceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME (Vol. 38, pp. 249–256).
Jansen, A. (2006). Seventh graders’ motivations for participating in two discussion-oriented
mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409–428.
Lazarides, R., & Watt, H. M. (2015). Girls’ and boys’ perceived mathematics teacher beliefs,
classroom learning environments and mathematical career intentions. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 41, 51–61.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.
Middleton, J. A., & Jansen, A. (2017). SMiLES: secondary mathematics, in-the-moment, longitu-
dinal engagement study. Washington, DC: Proposal for funding submitted to the National
Science Foundation. Accepted.
Middleton, Mangu, D., & Lee, A. (2016). A longitudinal study of mathematics and science
motivation patterns for STEM-intending high schoolers in the US. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the 13th international congress for mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement:
Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 667–699). Reston: NCTM.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. p., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test
anxiety: Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress
& Coping, 17(3), 287–316.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., Baroody, A., Larsen, R., Curby, T., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do
teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in
mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170–185.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge.
Learning and Instruction, 32, 37–50.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your
potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education:
Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., &
Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school
classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60.
Sidgwick, H. (1907). The methods of ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Sinclair, N. (2001). The aesthetic is relevant. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(1), 25–32.
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing
students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 51, 1195–1226.
Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Linking students’ emotions and academic
achievement: When and why emotions matter. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 129–135.
Veenhoven, R. (2011). Greater happiness for a great number: Is that possible? If so, how? In K. M.
Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock
and moving forward (pp. 396–409). New York: Oxford University Press.
176 A. Wiezel et al.

Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. In Learning

mathematics (pp. 171–194). Dordrecht: Springer.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4),
678–691.
Webel, C. (2013). High school students’ goals for working together in mathematics class: Medi-
ating the practical rationality of studenting. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(1), 24–57.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
Zan, R., Brown, L., Evans, J., & Hannula, M. (Eds.). (2006). Educational Studies in Mathematics,
63(2), 113–121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472115.
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling
Routines and Its Relation to Identity
Construction

Juhaina Awawdeh Shahbari, Michal Tabach, and Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim

Abstract In this chapter, we link between modelling activity and affect through the
concept of “identifying” or identity construction, as conceptualized within
the communicational framework (Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard 2012; Sfard 2008).
Our aim is to trace the development of modelling abilities through following the
development of routines and the changes in identifying talk that co-occur along this
development. For this aim, we follow a group of five prospective teachers as they
worked on two model-eliciting tasks. Their working process was video recorded and
transcribed. The participants’ discourse was analyzed to identify changes in routines
while working on the two modelling tasks along with changes in their subjectifying
talk (communication about themselves and others). We were able to trace changes in
both these measures. Regarding the mathematical talk, we identify a change from a
nonsystematic choosing-routine to systematic-choosing-routines and from routines
that focus on choosing specific cases to routines that focus on eliciting criterions for
choosing. Regarding their identifying activity, we show how participants initially
build on their everyday roles in real life (such as mother, citizen and student), to
justify their claims in the modelling activity. Later, when routines become more
systematic and established, there is much less identifying talk, and claims are
justified based on mathematical narratives. We link these findings to previous
findings regarding the interaction of mathematizing and identifying activities in
mathematical learning.

Keywords Modelling · Model eliciting activities · Routine · Communicational

framework · Identity · Subjectifying and mathematizing

J. A. Shahbari (*)
Sakhnin College, Al-Qasemi Academy, Baqa El-Gharbiyye, Israel
e-mail: juhaina8@gmail.com
M. Tabach
Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
E. Heyd-Metzuyanim
Technion, Haifa, Israel

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 177

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_11
178 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Introduction

The modelling approach emphasizes the effectiveness of mathematics in real life

(Vorhölter et al. 2014). Modelling activities are designed for small group work
where the participants act as “a local community of practice” solving a real situation
(Lesh and Zawojewski 2007). The participants are required to share responsibility in
constructing their models through iterative cycles of translation, description, expla-
nation, justification, and prediction of outcome data and solution paths (Lesh and
Doerr 2003). This means, alongside the constructing of models and the mathematical
development, that the participants have opportunities for social development,
because they need to develop their argumentation skills while they assume, explain,
and justify for each other (English 2003). Therefore, modelling activities are con-
sidered a rich experience for monitoring changes in both cognitive and affective
domains. In the current study, we join the effort to study these aspects by focusing on
the changes in modelling abilities with interrelation to the participants’ identity
construction. A good candidate for such combined analysis is the commognitive
framework (Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard 2012; Sfard 2008). Using the communi-
cational perspective enabled us to closely monitor how learners’ mathematical and
identity construction processes unfolded and changed while they engaged in
sequence of two Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs).

Framework

Modelling

Modelling offers learners opportunities to confront mathematical as well as everyday

challenges (Lesh et al. 2000). MEAs are a relatively complex type of modelling task
involving real situations with incomplete, ambiguous, or undefined information
(English and Fox 2005). The learners are required to mathematize the situation in
ways that are meaningful for them (Lesh and Doerr 2003). For the mathematization
process, there is a need for type of quantities and operations in the realistic situation;
the kinds of quantities that are needed include accumulations, probabilities, frequen-
cies, ranks, and vectors. The operations include predicting, sorting, organizing,
selecting, coordinating, quantifying, weighting, and representing data (English
2006). Therefore, engagement with MEAs fosters among learners modelling abili-
ties, which is beyond the school mathematics textbook, and that are needed for our
era (Doerr and English 2003). The product of engagement in MEAs are models for
describing, explaining, or predicting the behavior of complex situations. These
models are then extended, explored and applied in other situations. This process is
considered as a central aim in model eliciting activities (English and Watters 2005).
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 179

The Communicational Framework

The communicational framework (Sfard 2008) is a socio-cultural perspective for

studying learning processes. The framework suggests that mathematics is a type of
discourse and that thinking is a certain form of self-communication. Sfard proposes
four characteristics of mathematical discourse: (1) Words and their uses: Each
discourse is characterized by its own keywords. Sometimes, the same words are
used in different ways in colloquial and mathematical discourse. (2) Visual media-
tors: As mathematics is not about physical objects, in many cases communication is
fostered by referring to visual realizations that are part of the communication (e.g.,
graphs or symbols). (3) Narratives: Narratives are sequences of utterances framed as
descriptions of objects, relations between objects or processes with or by objects that
can be endorsed or rejected (e.g., theorems and definitions). (4) Routines: Routines
are repetitive discursive patterns characteristic of a specific discourse (e.g., solving a
linear equation). According to the communicational framework, learning is a change
in the individual’s discourse, that is, a change in words and how they are used, in
narratives endorsed or in routines used. Sfard and Lavie (2005) divided routine to
three subsets, opening, procedure and closing. The opening specifies the condition
that routine may be evoked. The procedure is the how of the routine, it includes the
subset that identifies the performance, and the closing describes the circumstances
that indicate the completion of the routine performance.
Sfard (2008) suggested two types of learning: learning at the object level and
learning at the meta-level. Tabach and Nachlieli (2016) explained that object level
learning involves expanding the existing discourse by expanding the range of word
use, routines, visual mediators and endorsed narratives for a mathematical object.
Meta-level learning involves changes in the meta-rules of the discourse.
While learning and doing mathematics, participants not only talk about mathe-
matical objects and preform mathematical routines, they also talk about themselves
and about other participants. Following Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard (2012), we
term this talk subjectifying and delineate it from the mathematical talk, which is
termed mathematizing. Identity construction during mathematical learning can be
first and foremost seen through subjectifying actions (whether verbal or non-verbal).
These may include statements including personal pronouns such as “I don’t under-
stand this” or “you can probably solve it” as well as more implicit messages that
identify the speaker as a certain speaker. Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard (2012) termed
these implicit subjectifications as indirect identifying, defined as actions intended to
elicit a certain identifying narrative in the receiver of the message. As a whole,
identifying activity, including emotional expressions and indirect subjectifying,
constructs a set of narratives about participants that are significant (for the author
of the identity story) and eventually reified into certain labels (such as “a mother”, “a
gifted mathematician” or a “dutiful citizen”) (Sfard and Prusak 2005). This is what
we term identity.
180 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Research Goal and Questions

The aim of the current study is to monitor the development of modelling abilities
among a group of prospective teachers through following the development of
routines and the changes in subjectifying talk that co-occur along this development,
by means of the communicational framework (Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard 2012;
Sfard 2008). We ask the following research questions:
1. Which routines and participants’ identifying talk can be noted in the participants’
work on model-eliciting activities?
2. What changes in routines and participants’ identifying talk can be noted while
they work on a sequence of two model-eliciting activities?

Method

Research Participants

This study is part of a larger research project aimed at examining the development of
modelling abilities among practicing and prospective teachers while they engage in a
sequence of modelling activities (e.g., Shahbari and Tabach 2016). In the current
study, we followed and monitored one group with five participants [Areen, Fatena,
Kaman, Raneen and Muhand – all pseudonyms]. All prospective mathematics
teachers were in their 2nd year of studies in mathematics education track at a college
of education in Israel. They participated in a problem-solving course taught by the
first author as part of their studies. They had no previous experience with modelling
activities.

The Model-Eliciting Activities

In the current study we used two model-eliciting activities: one is “Summer camp
activity” and the other “Good teacher” activity, both designed by Shahbari and
Tabach (2017) based on the six design principles of Lesh et al. (2000).

Summer Camp Activity

The Summer camp activity is about a mother who wants to choose a summer camp
(s) for her two children. The mother organized the data about six camps (A, B, C, D,
E and F) via four tables that provide information about each one, where each table
refers to several components. We named the tables by using the letter C to refer to
camp activity and Roman numerals to indicate the order of the table. For example,
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 181

Table C.i is the first table in the camp activity. Table C.i provides the dates,
transportation, food and cost of each camp. Table C.ii includes the types and number
of entertainment activities at each camp. Table C.iii consists of data from the
previous year about the number of participants and number of counselors at each
camp. Table C.iv provides the parents’ evaluations and ranking of the camps for the
previous year, with the ranking ranging from one to five stars. The participants need
to write a letter to the mother explaining which camps are the most suitable based on
her criteria, suggesting a model she can use every time she wants to choose a camp.

Good Teacher Activity

The Good teacher activity is about a principal of an elementary school who is

seeking a candidate for the position of math teacher at his school. He has a list of
ten graduates who completed their B. Ed. The data about the candidates is described
via four tables. We named the tables by using letter G to refer to the good teacher
activity and Roman numerals to indicate the order of the tables. Table G.i includes
the candidates’ ages and their average grades in their B. Ed. studies. Table G.ii
includes the candidates’ ranking by their pedagogical instructors for their practice
teaching, ranging from A+ to F over 3 years. Table G.iii includes the ranking of the
candidates’ performance in the interview. Table G.iv includes the ranking for
participation in social initiatives. The solvers need to write a letter to the principal
that identifies the most suitable candidate, explain the choice and provide a model for
choosing suitable candidates that he can use in the coming years.

Research Procedures and Data Sources

The participants first worked on the Summer camp activity and after 1 week worked
on the Good teacher activity. The instructor (the first author) introduced the camp
and good teacher activities. After which the participants received the activity (hard
copy) and were asked as a group to provide a solution.
The main data sources were two video recordings of one group of five teachers
working on the two model-eliciting activities. These recordings were transcribed
verbatim: a 132-min video recording of the camp activity and an 80-min video
recording of the good teacher activity. We also used the group’s reports and draft
sheets as an additional data source.

Data Analyses

The data derived from the video recordings were analyzed by the commognitive
perspective in two phases: (a) the first phase included searching for routines, based
182 J. A. Shahbari et al.

on Sfard’s (2008) discourse analysis methodology. This search was conducted as

follows: After transcribing the video recordings, we parsed the transcript into
episodes according to participants’ working in each table or in the relation between
the tables in the model-eliciting activities. If during one sub-task the participants
enacted two routines, we separated the participants’ utterances into two episodes. In
each episode, we searched for participants’ actions in order to trace the routines they
employed while they worked on each model-eliciting activity. For each identified
routine, we searched for two defining parts. The first was the when of the routine,
comprising the routine’s opening and later its closing. The utterances between the
routine’s opening and closing were classified as the how of the routine, i.e., the
routine procedure. (b) The second phase included searching for identifying activity:
in each routine we distinguished utterances that included subjectifying (Heyd-
Metzuyanim and Sfard 2012); The subjectifying utterances included talk about
people, for example “the interviews are important for me”; examining these
subjectifying utterances, we found that an important theme rising from them, and
that was highly connected with the context of the modeling problems, was the roles
students were taking on while they were subjectifying. We delineated these
subjectifying statements as role-taking identity statements. For example, if a student
talked about “as a mother, I would. . .” or “I wouldn’t let my children go to. . .”, we
classified this subjectifying statement as taking on the role of a mother.

Findings

We first present the modelling routines that we identified in the two modelling
activities. Then we focus on the closing condition for each routine.

Modelling Routines in the Two Modelling Activities

We identified three main routines in the two modelling activities. The choosing
specific cases routine was identified only in the Summer camp activity. The eliciting
general model routine was identified in the two modelling activities. The
implementing the elicited model routine was identified in the Good teacher activity
only. We detail the sub-routines of these three main routines for each activity
separately, and summarize all sub- routines in Table 1. Evidence from participants’
discourse for each sub-routine, are presented in the section about subjectifying
activity in the two modelling activities to avoid repetition.
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 183

Table 1 Routines identified in the two modelling activities

Activity Routines Features Sub-routines
Summer camp Routine 1: Choos- Non-systematic Looking at all cases [Episode 1]
activity- first ing specific cases comparison Looking at a sub-set of cases
phase (camps) [Episode 2]
Systematic com- Using average [Episode 3]
parison sub-set of Using estimation and ratio [Epi-
cases sodes 4 and 5]
Summer camp Routine 2: Eliciting Integration Assigning relative weighting
activity- second general model between [Episode 6]
phase components
Systematic quantification of numerical data
comparison [Episode 7]
defining range and scoring [Epi-
sode 8]
quantification of qualitative data
[Episode 9]
Good teacher Routine 2: Eliciting Systematic Quantification of numerical data
activity general model comparison [Episode 10]
Integration Assigning relative weighting for
between components [Episode 11 and 12]
components
Systematic Using average to assign values
comparison for quantitative quantities [Epi-
sode 13]
Systematic Quantification of qualitative data
comparison [Episodes 14 and 15]
Routine 3: Ranking Implementing the elicited model
Implementing the according to [Episode 16]
elicited model elicited model

Modelling Routines in the Summer Camp Activity

The participants’ work in the Summer camp activity can be separated into two
phases. In the first phase, the participants tried to choose specific camps. The
participants discussed the components of Table C.i and chose three camps. They
then tried to check their choice based on the information provided in the other three
tables without integrating the information from all four tables. The participants’
work during this first phase is denoted by Routine 1, which includes two main
routines: non-systematic comparison and systematic comparison with focus on a
sub-set of cases. Each of the two routines consists of two nested sub-routines:
Looking at all cases; Looking at a sub-set of cases; Using average; and Using
estimation and ratio.
In the second phase, after about half of the total duration of the activity elapsed,
the participants began thinking about the need to elicit general criteria for choosing
between the cases rather than choosing individual cases. The need to write a letter
about their considerations and decisions triggered this change. In the second phase of
184 J. A. Shahbari et al.

their work, we identified Routine 2 comprising two main routines: integration

between the components, and systematic comparison, which consists of three
sub-routines: quantification of numerical data; defining range and scoring; quantifi-
cation of qualitative data. After working for 92 min, the participants could provide
only a partial model – in which some components of the tables were still to be
considered, without actual results and the participants were unable to write a letter
about their recommendations.

Modelling Routines in the Good Teacher Activity

The participants’ work in the Good teacher activity was different from their work in
the camp activity, even though the two activities had similar external and internal
designs and similar mathematical foci of weighing variables, which required similar
modelling skills. In the Good teacher activity, the participants did not choose specific
candidates. Rather, they elicited a model and then weighed all the candidates
according to the model. The participants adapted most of the sub-routines of Routine
2 (quantification of qualitative data, quantification of numerical data and assigning
relative weighting) and one sub-routine of Routine 1 (using average) from the camp
activity. In addition, we identified a new routine in the Good teacher activity—
implementing the elicited model derived by the participants. Table 1 presents the
routines that were identified in the two modelling activities.
Table 1 shows that all the sub-routines that we identified in the Good teachers
activity while the participants elicited a general model, were also identified in
Summer camp activity. Using average was identified in the two modelling activities.
However, the use of average in Summer camp activity was identified in comparison
sub-set of camps, while in the Good teacher activity it was identified in the
systematic comparison between the candidates. Three of the sub-routines of Routine
2 were identified in the two modelling activities, yet in the Summer camp activity
they were identified in the second phase. Routine 3 was identified in the Good
teacher activity only because in the Summer camp activity, the participant get only
partly model, as explained above.

Subjectifying Activity in the Two Modelling Activities

Participants’ subjectifiyng talk was different in the two modelling activities. In the
first activity- Summer camp, we identified more subjectifying talk, specifically in the
first phase. While in the second activity- Good teachers, we identified less
subjectifying talk.
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 185

Subjectifying Talk in the Summer Camp Activity

As we mentioned earlier, the participants’ work in the Summer camp activity

separated into two phases. In the first phase, the closing sub-routines were all
based only on personal authority condition, such as, the decision of choosing the
number of the camps depended on participants’ personal experience as a mother. In
the second phase, the closing condition of some sub-routines were personal authority
and others were mathematical. Within sub-routines, participants took up different
roles such as Mother, Father, Citizen, Consumer and Students. Table 2 presents the
sub-routines and their structure (open, procedure and closing condition for each
sub-routine). The episodes are detailed below.
To demonstrate each sub-routine, we present the to participants’ discourse parsed
into nine episodes. Episode 1 below shows the participants’ discussion immediately
after they read the camp activity.

Episode 1: Non-systematic comparing with focus on all cases

[1] Fatena: [Reading the activity]
[2] Areen: Let’s first consider the dates of the camp. The first one is from July 2 to 10
[3] Muhand: All the dates are suitable
[7] Areen: Let’s compare camp A and camp C. What’s the difference between them? Both
of them provide transportation. The first one provides food and costs 750. The
third costs 900
[8] Kaman: The first is better
[9] Areen: Right, C gives 1 day more but doesn’t provide food and is more expensive. So,
A is more worthwhile than C
[10] Kaman: We can choose both A and E
[33] Areen I think it is enough. I am a mother. Enough
[37] Kaman: So the camps are A, D and E

Episode 1 includes the participants’ discussion of the four components in

Table C.i: dates, transportation, food and cost. The opening of the routine was
triggered by the requirement to choose the most suitable camp or camps [1]. The
procedure included direct and non-systematic comparison [2–36]. The routine
closed with the choice of three camps—A, D and E [37]. As an example of the
procedure, Muhand [3] determined that the dates of all the camps are suitable
without explicitly relating to the features of each camp, such as number of days or
other components. Kaman [8] determined that camp A is better without justification.
She looked only at two components in Table C.i and did not consider the others. The
closing of the routine was based on Areen’s personal authority [33]. She explicitly
backed her statement with an identifying statement of herself as a mother (“It’s
enough. I’m a mother. Enough”).
After the participants worked with Table C.i, they discussed how to take Table C.
ii into consideration. Episode 2 reproduces the participants’ discussions with respect
to Table C.ii, which includes the number and types of entertainment activities at each
camp.
186 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Table 2 Sub-routines in Summer camp activity, structure and their closing condition
Structure of routines opening, procedure and
Sub-routines closing Closing condition
Looking at all case [Epi- Opening: Consider Table C.i Personal authority
sode 1] Procedure: Non-systematic comparison
with focus all cases
Closing: Choosing three camps
Looking at a sub-set of Opening: Consider Table C.ii Personal authority
cases [Episode 2] Procedure: Non-systematic comparing with
focus the three chosen camps
Closing: Endorsed the three chosen camps
Using average [Episode 3] Opening: Consider Table C.ii Personal authority
Procedure: Using average to compare the
three chosen camps
Closing: Endorsed the three chosen camps
Using estimation and ratio Opening: Consider Tables C.iii and C.iv Mathematical and
[Episodes 4 and 5] Procedure: Using ratio and estimation with personal authority
focus on the three chosen camps
Closing: Endorsed the three chosen camps
Assigning relative Opening: The need for weighing tables by Mathematical
weighting [Episode 6] their importance
Procedure: Assigning relative weighting
Closing: Assigning values for the tables:
40%, 30%, 20% and 10%
Quantification of numeri- Opening: The need for assigning values for Mathematical
cal data [Episode 7] quantities
Procedure: Quantification of numerical data
Closing: Assigning quantity for each value
Quantification of qualita- Opening: The need for assigning values for Mathematical
tive data [Episode 8] quantities
Procedure: Quantification of qualitative
data
Closing: Assigning quantity for each value
Defining range and scor- Opening: The need for weighing numerical Mathematical
ing [Episode 9] quantities
Procedure: Defining range and scoring
Closing: Assigning point for selected range:
15–20 get 18 points

Episode 2: Non-systematic comparison focusing on a sub-set of cases

[39] Areen: Now, what about the other tables? Should we look at the data of all the camps
or only the ones we choose?
[43] Raneen: Let’s look only at the three camps
[45] Areen: The first camp offers 8 h of sports, swimming . . . there is no scientific
exploration
[47] Fatena: At camp D there are more activities, one compensates for the lack of others
(continued)
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 187

[51] Areen: It is strange! Without trips

[52] Fatena: I will not send my son
[53] Kaman: But look there are 1,1,2 trips, that’s means all the camps together 4 trips
[56] Muhand: But you pay such amount [money], to send your son only for activities
[69] Muhand: I mean, imagine yourself a child, what is the most important thing you want
[70] Areen: Also there are water games, we as children went for swimming, there is a
swimming activities
[74] Muhand: The three camps cover all the activities

Episode 2 reflects a non-systematic comparison between the components of the

three camps chosen from Table C.i. The opening of the routine starts with Areen’s
question [39]. She vacillated over whether to examine only the camps they chose in
Table C.i or to discuss the data of all the camps. The procedure exposes their implicit
decision to examine only the three camps. Their comparison between the camps was
non-systematic [40–73]. The routine closed with Muhand’s decision [74] to stay
with the three camps. The closing condition of the routine was, again, based on
personal authority, with Areen’s [70] statement about her (and others) experience as
children (“we as children went for swimming”). Areen’s statement follow other
participants’ identifying statements. For example, Fatena [52] said “I will not send
my son”, thus implicitly identifying herself as a mother and using this role to justify
her statements. Muhand [56] co-constructed Fatena’s role by identifying her as a
mother (“if you send your son”) who has to make a decision about the camp.
Even though the participants began discussing Table C.i unsystematically, one of
them later suggested using averages to discuss it systematically. Episode 3 shows the
participants’ ongoing discussions with respect to Table C.ii.

Episode 3: Systematic comparison based on average with focus on sub-set of cases

[75] Fatena: [referring to computing the average number of entertainment activities at each
camp] Maybe we should collect all of them and compute the average. Then we
can see which one is better
[76] Areen: Yes, let’s do that
[82] Fatena: 9, 10, 8, 2, 7, 21 divided by 6
[83] Areen: 9 [the average]. . .
[85] Kaman: A [camp A] is close to the average and F [camp F] too
[89] Areen: Pay attention to the numbers. They are similar. We don’t need the average
[93] Areen It is important that the child will have fun more than (that he) studies
[95] Kaman: We’ll stay with A, D, and E

Episode 3 systematically compares the components of the three chosen camps

from Table C.i. The routine starts with Fatena’s [75] sudden suggestion to compute
the average of the number of entertainment activities at the camps. The procedure
[76–94] includes computing the average, and the routine closes with the decision to
stick with the same three camps [95]. The closing of the routine is based, yet again,
on Areen’s [93] personal authority as a mother. Here, this identification is rather
implicit, as Areen talks about a general “child” (not her son) that should have “fun
188 J. A. Shahbari et al.

more than studies”. However, given the previous explicit declarations of herself as a
“mother”, such a value-laden statement can be directly linked to the previous role
that Areen had taken up.
After the participants finished working on Table C.ii, they discussed Tables C.iii
and C.iv. They used the procedure—ratio and estimation—while handling data from
the two tables. Episodes 4 and 5 show the participants working with these tables.

Episode 4: Comparison by estimation and ratio of sub-cases in Table C.iii

[115] Areen: Now let’s look at the third table [Table C.iii]
[117] Fatena: Does it show the number of campers?
[118] Areen: Ok, first let’s check the three camps we chose. If the numbers are right, we can
compare them with the others
[119] Kaman Camp A
[120] Areen For five children, there is one counselor; the total number of children does not
matter [meaning the total number of all children in the camp is not important]
[121] Fatena What is important is how many children are in [each] group
[126] Areen For 14 [referring to camp E] children there are two counselors.
[127] Kaman: That means that each counselor has 7 children; they are almost the same

Episode 5: Examining the three chosen camps from Table C.iv using ratio
[144] Muhand: Now let’s look at Table 4 (Table C.iv)
[145] Areen: Showing how the parents evaluated the camps last year
[146] Muhand: Let’s look at [camps] A, D and E
[149] Areen: Let’s see, camp A is the highest, with 3 stars
[150] Kaman: Look at the five stars [camp A]
159] Fatena: If we add all the categories we can get the total in each camp. No, we can get
from the last table [Table C.iii]
[161] Fatena: We can check the ratio [ratio between each category and number of children
as appear in Table C.iii]
[162] Areen: How?
[163] Fatena: 68 [number of votes in the three star category] divided by 210 [number of all
the children participate in camp A]
[164] Areen: It is approximately [the number of parents], maybe parents have more than
one child in the camp
[174] Areen: I see that A is just not good. E and D good, D more than half gave 4 stars,
right? 253 [number of votes in the three star category] from 570 [number of all
the children participate in camp D]?
[184] Fatena: But maybe a mother would say, no matter what others say, only the number of
days is important
[185] Areen: No, not to this level, they take into account other things, if in a camp they beat
children, then because of the number of days we sent to it [sent the children to
the camp]
[187] Raneen: D and E. . . we agree about them
[188] Areen: Yes
[189] Raneen: Maybe we should replace A
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 189

Episode 4 shows the participants’ discussion of Table C.iii, which includes data
from the previous year about the number of participants and number of counselors at
each camp. In the opening of routine using estimation and ratio the participants
discussed whether or not to continue examining the three chosen camps [115–119].
The procedure [120–126] uses estimation of the ratio between the number of
children and the number of counselors at each camp. The routine [127] closes with
a confirmation of their choice of the three camps—A, D and E.
Episode 5 shows the participants’ discussion of Table C.iv, which includes the
parents’ assessments and ranking of the camps from the previous year, with the
ranking ranging from one to five stars. As seen in Episode 5, the routine using
estimation and ratio [144–146] opens with the participants checking only the three
camps. The procedure [161–186] involves estimating and comparing the ratios of the
rankings in each category. The routine [187–189] closes with the choice of camps D
and E. The closing of the routine combined mathematical as well as personal-
authority justifications. Thus, in [174] Areen decided which camps are good
according to mathematical considerations (number of votes, proportion of 4 star
ratings), but in [185] she based her justifications again on her role as a mother who is
knowledgeable of parents’ considerations (“they take into account” and “we sent to
it”).
Episode 6 presents the participants’ initial attempt to search for general criteria. In
this episode, the participants discuss how to rank criteria by assigning a different
weight to each criterion.

Episode 6: Assigning relative weights to the tables in the camp activity

[216] Fatena: What do you say about the tables? Which one is more important?
[225] Fatena: 4 [Table C.iv], it is about parents. They [parents] sorted or ranked [the
camps], there are those who did not vote, perhaps they gave a high score but
they did not vote. Like the local municipalities election, some [people] don’t
vote in it, maybe they do support [the candidate] but they do not vote
[226] Areen: I don’t think so. They [other people] drag them [people who don’t want to
vote]
[230] Areen: We understand that the first table is the most important, but what do we have
to do to organize them (the tables)?
[234] Muhand: We must arrive at a solution so that if you are a mother and get these lists of
camps, you’ll know how to choose
[235] Fatena: I’ll prepare a table. If the camp meets all the criteria in the table, it is suitable
[249] Areen: But how can we express this? We have to be able to write it in a letter
[256] Areen: We’ll assign a weight for the period of the camp
[273] Areen Right, I agree with Fatima, it is right, we should consider the price
[274] Muhand: So, you send your son without looking at the program
[276] Fatena: We can’t leave anything out. We have to assign priorities. That means all of
them are important
[279] Areen: The activity reminded me..., you know if you want to buy food products or for
example washing powder; if the price of 5 kg is like that. . . and for 6 kg the
price like that. . ., so you need to check if it’s the same price per 1 kg
[282] Fatena: We need to build a table with the more important criteria.
(continued)
190 J. A. Shahbari et al.

[310] Fatena Do you remember the feedback that we do about the lecturers? It is the same,
we evaluated them, do they look at it
[320] Kaman: If you want to choose a school for your son; at first, you will ask about the
school
[339] Areen: I think we can say that table one is worth 50% and the other tables are 50%,
then we can separate the 50% into the components; the whole is 100%
[354] Fatena: We can say how much each table is worth, and then, how much in each table
[376] Kaman: The first table is 50%
[407] Kaman: 40%, 30%, 20% and 10%

The participants’ discussion in Episode 6 shows their attempts to find ways to

organize and rank the tables by their importance. Episode 6 illustrates routine
Assigning relative weighting, this routine opened with Fatena [216] asking her
peers to rank the tables, Areen [230, 249] asking about how to organize the tables
and Muhand [234] focusing on the need to find a solution. The procedure [339–406]
uses weighting by assigning a percent to each table, according to Areen’s suggestion
[339] to use percent where the whole is 100%. The routine closed by providing a
percent for each component, as Kaman suggested [407].
The closing condition of the routine -Assigning relative weighting uses a math-
ematical justification. Within the participants assigning relative weighting for each
table, they played different roles (mother, father, student, consumer and citizen).
Fatina tried to explain that Table C.iv is not important by using her experience about
assessment from her real life. Fatena [225] exemplified as a citizen the case of local
council election, when supporter of one candidate did not go to vote for him. Areen
[226] with the same role as citizen, rejected Fatena’s claim. With another role,
Fatena continued to explain that feedback of parents in Table C.iii is not important.
Fatena, [310] taking up a role of student exemplified the case of students’ feedback
about the lecturers, which she claimed as not important because the college’s
management did not consider it. The participants occupied the roles of mother and
father; Mohand [274] turned to Areen and asked her about her choice as a mother, he
used Areen’s role as a mother in order to emphasize the importance Table C.ii in the
Summer camp activity. In similar way, Kaman [320] turned to Mohand, and asked
him what he will do as a father in order to emphasize the importance of Table C.iii in
the Summer camp activity. When the participants discussed the costs of the camps,
we identified the role of consumer three times, as seen in Areen’s [279] explanation.
Areen [279] explained about the need to check the cost of one unit to get the
economical price, when there are products with different amounts and costs; Areen
tried to explain the need to look at different things through comparing the costs.
Episode 7 shows the participants’ discussion about assigning meaning to the
quantities in the different tables.

Episode 7: Quantification of numerical data in the camp activity

[444] Areen: What is the meaning of 12? We need a key. What part of the 100% does it
represent?
[445] Kaman: A part of 40
(continued)
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 191

[452] Fatena: What does a child need sciences research in camp for? He is bored in school
(science, let alone at a camp)
[456] Areen: Wait a moment. I need to return to the first table. We ranked it from 1 to 40. So,
what does this mean?
[457] Fatena: For example, 10% of 40 is 4, so it is 4

Episode 7 illustrates routine- Quantification of numerical data, the opening of the

routine was triggered by Areen’s [444] question about how to assign meaning to a
quantity. The procedure [445–456] involved quantification of numerical data by
defining the whole and giving a value for the quantity. The routine [457] closes by
computing a value for the quantity. The closing condition is based on mathematical
activity. However, through the process of participants’ quantifying numerical data in
the different table, we identified subjectifying activity. For example, Fatena [452]
subjectified the role of child through her rejection of the quantification of Table C.ii
(“what does a child need science research in camp for?”).
In trying to assign points to different quantities, the participants had to quantify
qualitative data, such as providing food and transportation. Episode 8 is a short
episode describing this quantification.

Episode 8: Quantification of qualitative data in the camp activity

[522] Fatena: Food and transportation?
[523] Areen: There is or there isn’t, 4 or 0
[524] Fatena: yes is 4, no is 0

Episode 8 illustrates routine Quantification of qualitative data. The routine opens

with Fatena’s question about the food and the transportation [522]. The procedure
involves Areen’s suggestion to assign a numerical value [523], and the routine closes
with assigning a numerical value to each variable [524]. The closing of the routine
uses a mathematical justification, there is no evidence for personal authority.
Episode 9 shows the participants’ discussions about how to quantify continuous
quantities.

Episode 9: Defining range and scoring in the camp activity

[467] Fatena: For example, if one camp offers 20 days and another offers 8, she won’t
choose the one offering fewer days
[468] Areen: I understand (she looks at the researcher) but we need to tell her what a
12 or a 20 means. We must provide her a tool for calculating which is more
important
[469] Researcher: Here’s a chance to examine this by using a range. For example, certain
scores will be assigned to all the prices within a certain range
[478] Areen: The number of days?
[479] Kaman: 1–20 [days] is the larger one [number of days]
[480] Areen: From 1 to 20 [days] gets 20 [points]
[504] Areen: A score equal to or greater than 20 is worth 20 points; between 15 and
20 [days] is worth 18 points; 10–15 [days] is worth 15 [points]. Note there
is no need for addition here because we use ranking
192 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Episode 9 illustrates the routine Defining range and scoring. The routine [467]
opens when Fatena asks about tools to help assign weights to the dates of the camps.
The procedure begins with the researcher’s suggestion [469] to use a range. Then the
participants [480–503] use the range by assigning points to several components. The
routine closes by assigning the numerical values to the components, as reflected in
several sentences, for example [504]. The closing of the routine is based on a
mathematical justification.

Subjectifying Talk in the Good Teacher Activity

In the Good teacher activity we identified much less subjectifying utterances com-
pared to the Summer camp activity, and the closing conditions of all of the
sub-routines were mathematical. We identified only two turns in which some of
the participants took up a role of a school principal and an expert on practices in the
Ministry of Education. Table 3 presents the subroutines, their structure (open,
procedure and closing and the closing condition of each sub-routine).

Table 3 Subroutines, structure of each sub-routine and their closing condition in Good teach
activity
Sub-routines
Quantification of numerical data
[Episode 10]
Assigning relative weighting for
components [Episode 11 and 12]
Using average to assign values for
quantitative quantities [Episode 13]
Quantification of qualitative data
[Episodes 14 and 15]
Implementing the elicited model
[Episode 16]
Structure of routines opening, procedure Closing
and closing condition
Opening: Consider Table G.i Mathematical
Procedure: Transforming average of
each candidate to another value
Closing: Assigned value for the each
candidate
Opening: Consider all the tables and Mathematical
components in Table G.ii
Procedure: Assigning relative weighting
Closing: Assigned percent for the each
table and for each criterion in Table G.ii
Opening: Consider Table G.ii Mathematical
Procedure: Using average to calculate
the different scores for each candidate
Closing: Assigned value for the each
candidate
Opening: Consider Tables Table G.iii and Mathematical
Table G.iv
Procedure: Quantifying of qualitative
data
Assigned value for the different criteria
in the two tables
Opening: The need for implementation of Mathematical
the elicited model
Procedure: Ranking candidates
according to elicited model
Closing: Choosing one candidate
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 193

To illustrate the sub-routines, we show the participants’ discourse in Episodes

10–16. Episode 10 depicts the participants’ discussion on how to scale the numerical
quantities in Table G.i.

Episode 10: Quantification of numerical data from Table G.i

[1] Fatena: [Reads the good teacher activity]
[5] Areen: We can start with their averages
[9] Fatena: The lowest is 78, so the average is between 78 and 96. . . so we can say that
whoever gets 78 will have low scores. Do you remember the use of scores? For
example, 78 will get 5 points, and if the average is higher, it will get more points
[26] Kaman: That means 70 is one point, 71 is 2 points, 72 is 3 points. . .100 is 30 points.
Using range would be better
[40] Fatena: There is no problem with counting, 95 get 26 points, 82 get 13, 85. . .16, 19 is
22. . .

Episode 10 represents routine Quantification of numerical data. The opening of

the routine is the reading of the activity and the instruction to choose a good teacher
[1] as well as Areen’s suggestion [5] to start with the average (Table G.i). The
procedure of routine involves transforming the average to other quantities, as Fatena
[9] explained to her classmates. She asked them if they remember a past routine: “Do
you remember the use of scores?” Kaman [26] makes another suggestion to use
routine Defining range and scoring by proposing to use range: “Using range would
be better.” routine Quantification of numerical data closes by giving numerical
values for the averages component [40]. The closing of routine based in mathemat-
ical consideration.
Episodes 11 and 12 show the participants’ attempt to rank the components in
Table G.ii and to rank all four tables given in the good teacher activity. The
participants used routine Assigning relative weighting, a previous routine from the
camp activity.

Episode 11: Assigning relative weighting for components in Table G.ii in the good teacher activity
[42] Muhand: Which is more important (in Table G.ii)?
[43] Raneen: All of them
[44] Fatena: There are five criteria
[45] Raneen: Use average
[74] Muhand: I think if we calculate the average, it means that the same importance [is given
to all criteria in Table G.ii], but if I want an educator [teacher who is
responsible for class management], so I want to emphasize the class man-
agement, I do not think it’s the same importance [like the other criteria]
[81] Fatena: If you use average that means all of them will have the same importance
[82] Muhand: So, you can order them by their importance
[119] Areen: Let’s rank them
[120] Raneen: To give an example so Fatena can understand, there are 5 criteria, we can
compute from 100%
[136] Kaman: 20, 25, 30, 5 and 20
194 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Episode 11 depicts routine Assigning relative weighting for components with

respect to assigning relative weighting for the components in Table G.ii. Routine
Assigning relative weighting for components opens with Muhand’s [42] question,
“which is more important?” The procedure [119–134] is to give different values for
the different criteria. The routine closes with Kaman [136] assigning a value for each
criterion. The closing of the routine is based on mathematical justification. Within
the routine of assigning values to the components in Table G.ii, we found
subjectifying talk when Muhand [74] emphasized the importance of class manage-
ment (“when you look for an educator”. He thus took up the role of school principal.
However, this role was taken up only to justify the use of a certain routine (assigning
different weights) rather than to end the routine.

Episode 12: Assigning relative weighting for the tables in the good teacher activity
[176] Areen: Which is more important?
[177] Kaman The second (table)
[148] Kaman: 30
[182] Fatena: No, even if you are now a “wow” student but with average 70, so what teacher
you will be [what kind of teacher]? The first thing they look at in ministry of
education is the Average
[185] Fatena: No, it is low, the first (table) is 40
[187] Areen: The interview is important
[188] Kaman: All of them are the same rate
[189] Fatena: No
[190] Kaman: 40, 30, 20 and 10

Episode 12 shows the participants using routine Assigning relative weighting.

The opening is Areen’s [176] question about which table is more important. The
procedure [177–189] includes assigning a percentage for each table, and Kaman’s
[190] answer closes the routine. The closing of routine is based, again, on mathe-
matical justification. Within this routine Fatena [182] took up the role of an expert on
practices in the Ministry of Education. Again, this was that is not used as a closing
argument. Rather, it was used for assigning a certain weight and choosing a routine
(average).
Episode 13 shows the participants’ discussion of how to assign values for
different quantities in Table G.ii.

Episode 13: Using average to assign values for quantitative quantities

[77] Areen: It does not matter if the teacher was better during one particular year, so we can
use the average
[100] Raneen: You must build a model; these grades change
[101] Areen: The average is the model
[105] Areen We use average in order to consider all of them (the 3 years)
[138] Areen: The grades are from 1 to 12. so what is 1 from 30 [percent]?
[139] Kaman: Do the average first
[173] Kaman: Adeam (one of the candidate teachers) gets 10.2
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 195

Episode 13 depicts routine Using average about using average as a way of

equating scales for different quantities. The opening of routine Using average is
Areen’s [77] statement: “It does not matter if the teacher was better during one
particular year.” The procedure [139–163] involves the use of average as a way to
assign equal ranking to the 3 years. The closing of the routine is assigning a value
[164–173] for each candidate. The closing of the routine based on mathematical
condition.
Episodes 14 and 15 depict the participants trying to give meaning to Table G.iii
and Table G.iv, respectively. The two tables include qualitative criteria. Table G.iii
shows the ranking of the participants’ performance in the interview, ranging from
“not acceptable at all” to “broadly acceptable.” Table G.iv shows the ranking for
participation in social initiatives, ranging from “did not participate at all” to “par-
ticipated to a great extent.”

Episode 14: Quantification of qualitative data in Table G.iii

[186] Areen: To continue, the interview
[197] Areen: How many columns (in the third table)
[198] Muhand: 5
[199] Raneen: 20, 40, 60, 80, 100

Episode 15: Quantification of qualitative data in Table G.iv

[209] Areen: The last table. . . we can separate into four
[211] Raneen But why give points for non-participation
[214] Areen: Ahh, yes . . .100 to divide by 3
[215] Raneen: Better without fraction
[216] Areen: What do you want? 100, 60, 30
[217] kaman: Maybe here 65 [instead of 60%]

Episodes 14 and 15 depict routine Quantification of qualitative data. In each

episode, the routine opens with a request to deal with the tables [186], [209]. The
procedure of each [187–198], [210–215] involves assigning a numerical value to
each criterion, depending on the number of columns. In each case, routine Quanti-
fication of qualitative data closes by providing the value— 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 for
Table G.iii [199] and 30, 65 and 100 for Table G.iv [216–217]. So, the closing
condition of the routine is based on mathematical considerations, it depended on the
calculating process.
After the participants elicited a model for choosing a candidate, they began
implementing this model. Episode 16 illustrates the participants’ discussion about
the implementation of the elicited model.

Episode 16: Ranking candidates according to the elicited model

[231] Areen: Now we need to calculate the general score for each one
[232] Fatena: Muhand (one of the participants) you calculate the scores for these two
candidates
[The group worked on these calculations in almost complete silence]
(continued)
196 J. A. Shahbari et al.

[235] Muhand: Rawan gets 78.8 and the other 63.88

[239] Kaman: The highest score is for Adeam with 82.5, then Aram, Mayar, Nasreen,
Nemreen

Episode 16 shows Routine 3 – which implements the elicited model. The opening
of the routine is Areen’s [231] request to calculate the scores for each candidate. The
procedure involves substituting in the model [232–238], and the routine closes [239]
with participants’ answers about the scores for each candidate. The closing condition
of the routine is mathematical; we identified a process of calculating the points for
candidates, and then compering between them.
The closing condition for each sub- routine in the two modelling activities and the
role participants occupied within these sub-routines summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that in the Summer camp activity some sub-routines’ closing
conditions were based on personal authority, and the roles that participants took up
from their everyday life were central for their decisions. The same sub-routines in the
Good teacher activity had mathematical closing conditions, and much less
subjectifying activity was observed.

Table 4 Closing condition for each sub-routine and participants identifying activity
Closing condition and identifying roles
Sub-routines Summer camp Good teachers
Looking at all Personal authority [Episode 1] –
case Occupied role: Mother
Looking at a Personal authority [Episode 2] –
sub-set of cases Occupied roles: Mother and
child
Using average Personal authority [Episode 3] Mathematical [Episode 13]
Occupied role: Mother
Using estimation Mathematical and personal –
and ratio authority [Episodes 4 and 5]
Occupied role: Mother
Assigning rela- Mathematical [Episode 6] Mathematical [Episode 11 and 12]
tive weighting Occupied roles: Mother, Father, Occupied roles: School principal and an
Citizen, Consumer and Students expert on practices in the Ministry of
Education
Quantification of Mathematical [Episode 7] Mathematical
numerical data Occupied role: Child [Episode 10]
Quantification of Mathematical [Episode 8] Mathematical [Episodes 14 and 15]
qualitative data
Defining range Mathematical [Episode 9] –
and scoring
Implementing – Mathematical [Episode 16]
the elicited
model
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 197

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to describe the development of modelling abilities
among a group of prospective teachers through following the development of
routines and the changes in subjectifying talk that co-occur along this development
by means of the communicational framework (Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard 2012;
Sfard 2008).
The findings indicate that through engagement in the two model-eliciting activ-
ities there were changes in the mathematical talk and in the subectifying talk, and
that these changes occurred simultaneously. In the first activity, the participants
worked first with Routines 1 that included two sub-routines: non-systematic method
and systematic method and Routine 2 that involved eliciting criteria for choosing,
but when they had to elicit a model in the second activity they worked with Routine
2 and Routine 3—implementing the elicited model. The changes from a
non-systematic choosing-routine to systematic-choosing-routines and from routines
that focus on choosing specific cases to routines that focus on eliciting the criteria for
choice are an indication that learning took place. We consider this learning to be at
the meta-level, because the participants learned the rules of how to work on MEAs
beyond the specific activity. The participants noticed that working with Routine 1 in
the camp activity did not provide a solution. Then they began working with Routine
2 in response to the need to develop a tool for choosing appropriate cases. Routine
2 was part of a modelling discourse that the participants previously lacked. The new
discourse focused on the following: eliciting models that involved interpreting and
dealing with multiple tables of data; creating, using, modifying, quantifying and
converting quantities; and coordinating, organizing data and representing findings in
visual and textual forms. We consider this discourse to be an elaboration of model-
ling abilities.
Regarding the subjectifying talk, we found that as the routines for modelling
activities became established, so did the subjectifying activity decrease. In particular,
participants took up less of their everyday roles (mother, child, citizen) and focused
instead on more mathematical talk. In the first activity we identified more turns that
include subjectifying talk of different roles, some of these roles such as citizen and
consumer were not related directly to the situation. In the second activity, we found
much less subjectifying talk, and the little everyday roles that were taken up were
directly linked to the situation. These findings can indicate about alienation process
of the routines; in the second activity routines were occurring of themselves, without
the participation of human beings, so we identified less subjectifying talk and the
closing condition of these routines were mathematical. However, when the routines
were in progress, the closing condition was based in personal authority.
Another important difference between the first and second activities was the
status of role-related statements in the discussion. In the first activity, statements
referring to being a mother, for example, were used as an ultimate arbitrator between
the choices to be made. In the second activity, they were used only to assist in
quantifying qualitative measures, such as the value of certain characteristic.
198 J. A. Shahbari et al.

Our analyses above emphasize the interaction of mathematizing and identifying

processes in modeling activity. These findings continue previous findings, such as
Heyd-Metzuyanim and Sfard (2012), who showed the adverse effects that excessive
identifying activity can have on efficient mathematizing. However, our findings are
also unique in that subjectifying activity is, in a sense, called for in modelling
activities. In fact, modelling activities are designed to build upon students’ everyday
experience (including their roles and identities out of the classroom), while helping
them transform the everyday justifications for making a certain choice into mathe-
matical justifications. Thus, we believe that the decrease in subjectifying and
increase in mathematizing can be considered as an indicator of successful learning
in modeling activities.
Despite the importance of the current study and the interesting findings it yielded,
we are aware that the study has two limitations. One limitation concerns the small
number of participants, only one group of five prospective teachers. This limitation
is related to the close observation needed in order to conduct this type of fine grained
analysis. Second, the participants worked only in two model-eliciting activities,
which were similar in their structure. We cannot know if similar findings would be
observed if the activities’ structure was different. Future research is needed to
address the two limitations pointed, in order to have the opportunity to generalize
these findings. In addition, future studies may explore further the connection
between the learning of modelling skills and subjectifying activity, particularly in
relation to identity construction, positioning and affect.

References

Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical

reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–137.
English, L. D. (2003). Problem posing in the elementary curriculum. In F. Lester & R. Charles
(Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 187–198). Reston: National Coun-
cil of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary school: Children’s construction of a
consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 303–329.
English, L. D., & Fox, J. L. (2005). Seventh-graders’ mathematical modelling on completion of a
three-year program. In P. Clarkson et al. (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and
practice (Vol. 1, pp. 321–328). Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modeling in the early school years. Mathe-
matics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 58–79.
Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Sfard, A. (2012). Identity struggles in the mathematics classroom: On
learning mathematics as an interplay of mathematizing and identifying. International Journal of
Educational Research, 51–52, 128–145.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundation of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics
teaching and learning. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and
modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 9–34).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Chapter 8: Development of Modelling Routines and Its Relation to. . . 199

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
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. 591–644). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and
mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A., & Lavie, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grown-ups cannot see as
different?—early numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237–309.
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating
learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.
Shahbari, J. A., & Tabach, M. (2016). Developing modelling lenses among practicing teachers.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(5), 717–732.
Shahbari, J. A., & Tabach, M. (2017). The commognitive framework lens to identify the develop-
ment of modelling routines. In B. Kaur, W. Kin Ho, & B. Heng Choy (Eds.), Proceedings of the
41th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol.
4, pp. 192–185). Singapore: PME.
Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Communicational perspectives on learning and teaching
mathematics: Prologue. Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM), 91(3), 299–306. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9638-7.
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 (pp. 21–36). Cham: Springer.
Part III
Commentary on Part III: Connections
to Theory and Practice

Morten Blomhøj

Abstract The four chapters forming Part III address two different but related issues
concerning affective aspects of teaching and learning mathematical modelling. That
is: (1) the possible effects of the students’ modelling activities on their attitudes
towards mathematics dealt with in chapters “Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship
Between Mathematical Modelling and Attitude Towards Mathematics” and
“Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement
and Attitude Toward Mathematics”; and (2) the affective aspects involved in the
students’ modelling work addressed in chapters “Chapter 11: Affect and
Mathematical Modelling Assessment-A Case Study on Students’ Experience of
Challenge and Flow During a Compulsory Mathematical Modelling Task by
Engineering Students” and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling”. The commentary
discusses these chapters with regard to their connections to theory of the teaching
and learning of mathematical modelling and to the practice of teaching modelling. For
furthering and integrating research on affective aspects of mathematical modelling it is
suggested to differentiate with regard to the two main educational goals for teaching
mathematical modelling in general education. That is mathematical modelling as a
didactical means for motivating, supporting and enhancing the students’ learning of
mathematics or developing the students’ mathematical competency as an educational
goal in it own right.

Keywords Affects in modelling · Affects through modelling · Modelling as

didactical means · Modelling competency

The four chapters forming Part III address two different but related issues concerning
affective aspects of teaching and learning mathematical modelling. That is: (1) the
possible effects of the students’ modelling activities on their attitudes towards
mathematics dealt with in chapters “Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between
Mathematical Modelling and Attitude Towards Mathematics” and “Chapter 10:

M. Blomhøj (*)
Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
e-mail: blomhoej@ruc.dk

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 203

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_12
204 M. Blomhøj

Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude
Toward Mathematics”; and (2) the affective aspects involved in the students’
modelling work addressed in chapters “Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical
Modelling Assessment-A Case Study on Students’ Experience of Challenge and
Flow During a Compulsory Mathematical Modelling Task by Engineering Students”
and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling”.
The affective aspects of the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling is
not that well researched. Therefore, in general the book at hand is an important
contribution to the field of research on the teaching and learning of mathematical
modelling. In particular, the chapters in this section, focusing on the relationship
between students’ perception of and attitudes towards mathematics on the one hand
and affective aspects of the students’ modelling work on the other hand, contributes
to the understanding of the potentials and challenges related to the integration of
modelling in mathematics teaching in general and higher education.
The chapters “Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical
Modelling and Attitude Towards Mathematics”, “Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling
Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude Toward Mathematics”
and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling” report research related to mathematics
teaching from grade 2 to 13 with main focus on secondary level (grade 8–13),
while chapter “Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modelling Assessment-A Case
Study on Students’ Experience of Challenge and Flow During a Compulsory
Mathematical Modelling Task by Engineering Students” reports from a study on
first year engineering students. The chapters are anchored in very different educa-
tional systems, namely Italy, Iran, Norway and Canada respectively. In all cases, the
research reported has an empirical basis. The methods used variate from qualitative
analyses of cases of individual students’ modelling activities over qualitative and
quantitative analyses of essays from a large number of students to quantitative
analyses of questionnaires on students’ affects and attitudes in relation to specific
modelling activities.
In chapter “Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Model
ling and Attitude Towards Mathematics” the connections between mathematical
modelling and attitudes towards mathematics is established theoretically with refer-
ences to the literature in the two relatively detached fields of research. Nearly 1500
students’ essays on “Me and maths: my relationship with mathematics up to now”
are analysed. From the theoretical analyses as well as from the essays, modelling has
a potential for supporting both cognitive learning goals and for supporting the
development of a positive attitudes towards mathematics. However, first of all the
essays suggest a complex relationship between mathematical modeling and attitude
towards mathematics. The personal history with mathematics and mathematics
teachers and the degree of experienced personal success is key in the forming of the
students’ attitudes towards mathematics. A general finding is that alignment between
learning goals, teaching practice and form of assessment seems to be a prerequisite for
developing positive attitudes towards mathematics in students. Accordingly, introduc-
tion of modelling at said secondary level in form of a few projects per year with no
direct relevance for the formal assessment of the students’ learning cannot be expected
to contribute to the forming of positive attitudes towards mathematics.
Commentary on Part III: Connections to Theory and Practice 205

In analyzing the essays, utterances about mathematics being useful in everyday

contexts, future education or professional life as well as expressions about the
experienced uselessness of mathematics, characterize to a high degree the two
groups with very positive and very negative attitudes respectively. However, the
picture is not symmetric. The usefulness of mathematics is expressed in many ways
and is often connected to social aspects or mathematics competence as an instrument
for education and carriers. While uselessness is expressed as a personal experienced
phenomenon: “Mathematics is useless for me”. The statement might be generalized
by the student with additions such as: “and for all other people how are not going to
be engineers”. So for students with negative attitudes modelling activities will
probably only change their attitude through personal experiences of being able to
do something meaningful and successful in mathematical modelling. Moreover, the
analysis uncovers a negative development in attitudes toward mathematics from
primary to secondary level. The number of utterances expressing usefulness
decreases and those expressing uselessness increases from primary to secondary
level. That is interesting – and depressing – since there is an expected connection
between students’ experienced usefulness of mathematics and the increased expo-
sure to mathematical modelling and applications of models throughout secondary
mathematics teaching. Such connection seems to be evident only for those students
who have already developed positive attitudes towards mathematics and personal-
ized the story about the usefulness of mathematics.
Chapters “Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’
Engagement and Attitude Toward Mathematics”, “Chapter 11: Affect and
Mathematical Modelling Assessment-A Case Study on Students’ Experience of
Challenge and Flow During a Compulsory Mathematical Modelling Task by
Engineering Students” and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling” all use of the theory
of flow developed in psychology by Csíkszentmihályi with the book from 1990 as
the main reference. The theory is introduced in some detail in chapter “Chapter 10:
Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude
Toward Mathematics”. From the analyses in these three chapters it is evident that
this theory and in particular the notion of balancing flow and challenge is a powerful
theoretical tool for researching the affective aspects involved in students’ modelling
activities.
Chapter “Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’
Engagement and Attitude Toward Mathematics” reports on an intervention study
with 244 female students in grade 10 (aged 15–16) from three private high schools in
Iran. Two groups of students participated in six sessions on modelling problem
solving given in a teacher-centered instruction format or in a student-centered format
respectively. A pre- and post-test instrument with questionnaires on the students’
attitudes towards mathematics and on the students’ experiences of flow during
modelling and problem solving, and tests in modelling problems, word problems,
and intra mathematical problems was developed and applied in the study.
The three types of problems are illustrated with one example each. As example of
a modelling problem a well-known problem is given: Find the optimal position in
terms of distance from the backline for a football player to take a shot on goal when
running parallel to sideline towards the goal. The way this problem is structured and
206 M. Blomhøj

formulated only challenge the students’ to work with some of sub-processes

involved in mathematical modelling; namely the mathematization, the mathematical
analysis, the interpretation, and possible the validation process.
The quantitative analyses show that teaching modelling in this context has a
positive effect on the students’ attitudes toward mathematics. This is supported by
the teachers’ and the students’ reflections, which clearly show that working with
modelling problems have brought about a change in the students’ attitude towards
the mathematics course in question.
Analyses of the flow questionnaire show that students found both intra-
mathematical and modelling problems to be less engaging than word problems.
Intra-mathematical problems were too easy and boring, while modelling problems
were too hard and frustrating. In interpreting the last part of this finding, it should be
taken into account that the students’ were not challenged to delimit and formulate
problems for modelling, systematized or collect and analyze data as part of their
modelling work. Working with full scale modelling would probably have led to even
higher degree of frustration. Accordingly, it seems as if the choice of already
simplified modelling problems in the design is adjusted to the teaching practice,
which forms the context for the research.
The findings are explained using the theory of flow. The word problems involved
in the study were challenging for the students’ because they were different from the
tasks in their normal teaching, and because they challenge the students to make sense
out of the problem situations described in the tasks. These problems call for
discussions in the group work, which was appreciated by students. Moreover, in
this context the students’ experience a high degree of success solving this type of
word-problems.
However, in the study it is not really addressed to what degree the word-problems
constitute mathematical problems for the students. That is to what degree the
students need to draw on and develop their understanding of mathematical concepts
and methods beyond the standard procedure in which they have been trained in order
answer the word-problems.
These findings are interesting but it is not really discussed what to draw from
them in terms of recommendations for the development of the practice of teaching. If
the development of modelling competency in students is seen as an important part of
the justification of teaching mathematics, then modelling problems cannot be
interchanged with word-problems. Moreover, in order to support the development
of modelling competency the students need to work with full scale modelling on a
regular basis. In the realization of this ambition, it is for sure relevant to research the
possible effects of the students’ modelling work on their attitudes towards
mathematics.
In chapter “Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modelling Assessment-A Case
Study on Students’ Experience of Challenge and Flow During a Compulsory
Mathematical Modelling Task by Engineering Students” we find a case study on
students’ experience of challenge and flow during a group assignment on the
modelling of a motion of the students own choice. As part of the research the task
were given to 239 first year engineering students in groups of 2–3 as a compulsory
assignment, which should be approved in order for the students to get access to the
written exam.
Commentary on Part III: Connections to Theory and Practice 207

In the task description, it was stipulated that each group should document their
motion in a video showing the actual movement of the object and that they should
develop a mathematical model that describes the position of the moving object as a
function of time. Some examples of motions were given in the task description as
inspiration for the students: throwing a ball, jumping a skateboard, or driving a car.
In addition, the students were encouraged to use their mobile phone for producing a
video of the motion and a particular freeware for tracking a moving object in a video
and generating coordinate representations of the position of the moving object as
function of time. The requirement for the groups was to produce a poster
documenting their modelling process with the given sections: Introduction, Obser-
vation, Model, and Discussion.
The students’ experience of challenge and flow working with this task was
measured by means of a questionnaire with 10 questions and some follow up
qualitative interviews. In addition, the questionnaire contained questions on how
the students’ have worked with the task including how they have used the digital
tools to generate data describing their motion and if they have used other types of
software for analyzing the data.
The research question: “To what extent does an open task about video analysis of
motion with mobile phones and free tracker software challenge and activate the
students?” was answered confirmatively. The quantitative analyses of the question-
naire showed that 59% of the students experienced challenge and flow working with
this task. This result was supported by observations of very active and engaged
students at campus during the project and in working group sections. From the
theory of flow, several features of the task and situation is lifted forward as possible
explanations for the finding. The task description with the suggested use of digital
tools make it easy for the group to get started. Probably, in most groups, at least some
of the students were familiar with producing videos with their mobile phone and
many students may have previous experiences with the use of tracker software. The
fact that the students were allow to choose, which motion to work with, made it
possible for the groups to take the ownership of the task and level the challenges in
the task to their ambition and abilities. In addition, the clear requirements for the
poster help the students to structure and report their modelling work. However, the
most important feature of the task and situation for causing engagement and activity
was that the assignment was compulsory with consequences for the students’
progress in the program.
The assignment resulted in 100 posters. No list of the types of motions analyzed
in the posters is given. However, two examples of the posters are presented in the
chapter: Throwing a table tennis ball and A bouncing rubber ball. These examples
indicate that some of the models developed can be at least partly based on physics
theory. Hereby the posters could formed the basis for interesting discussions on the
different status of mathematical models depending on their theoretical foundations.
Chapter “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling” present an in-depth analysis of the
modelling work of two students at grade 8 in a Canadian developmental project. The
point of departure is the students’ work with an open and rather complex modelling
task on the design of a new school with associated facilities and surroundings on a
208 M. Blomhøj

predefine lot. In designing the school in terms of size and placement of buildings and
facilities, the students need to take a number of requirement and restrictions into
account, and that is what constitute the complexness of the task.
The students’ modelling work is analyzed by means of their pathway through the
modelling process and in accordance with the methodology developed by Borromeo
Ferri (2006). Sixteen modelling actions are identified in the students’ work and these
are associated with sub-processes in the modelling process. In addition, these actions
are analyzed based on the transcript of the interactions among the students and with
the teacher. The interactions are analyzed with respect to flow according to the model
developed in Liljedahl (2018). By combining these two forms of analyses, it is
possible to identify the modelling actions that caused challenges for the students and
to pinpoint the dialogical interactions, which helped the students to overcome those
challenges and stay in or getting back in to flow.
As concluded in the chapter, these two theory based approaches for analyzing the
students’ modelling activity work perfectly together. The combination constitutes a
nice example of the interplay between research from mathematics education and
research from psychology. There are good reasons to believe that this dual approach
for analyzing the affective aspects of students’ pathways through the modelling
process can produce new insides on how to help students overcome challenges
related to the different sub-processes in mathematical modelling.

Connections to Theory of Teaching and Learning

of Mathematical Modelling

All four chapters related to the theoretical framework for researching on the teaching
and learning of mathematical modelling. They all refer to the notions of a mathe-
matical model, a modelling process and modelling competence, which are part of the
basis of this framework. The main elements in this framework are: (1) the justifica-
tions for modelling in mathematics teaching at different levels and branches of
educational systems – both the actual stated and the theoretical possible justifica-
tions; (2) suggestions for and reflections on how to implement modelling in curricula
including forms of assessment; (3) didactical ideas and principles for designing and
implementing modelling courses or activities in the practices of mathematics teach-
ing at different levels; (4) empirical identified and theoretical supported learning
potentials, as well as related cognitive and didactical challenges, connected to
different types of modelling approaches.
These elements developed in research on the teaching and learning of modelling
and applications are summarized by Blum et al. (2007) in the ICMI-study 14. Taken
together, they constitute a theoretical framework for research on the teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling.
As indicated in the chapters in this section research in the affective domain can
contribute with new insides related to all four elements of the framework for research
Commentary on Part III: Connections to Theory and Practice 209

on the learning and teaching of modelling and application. Therefore, integrating the
affective domain in this research field is a natural next step for further development.

Connections to the Practice of Teaching of Mathematical

Modelling

The framework for research on modelling and application has developed in close
interplay with the development for mathematics teaching practices. In fact, the
inclusion of modelling and applications is one of the major common trends world-
wide in curricula developments during the latest decades in general mathematics
teaching, particularly at secondary level.
However, as pointed out by Blum (2015), modelling and applications are still not
integrated element in mathematics teaching in general education. In the practices of
mathematics teaching at secondary level (grade 8–13), modelling and applications
are exotic and rare exceptions from the dominating teaching practice. Even in
systems where modelling and application play some role in the curriculum, the
practices of teaching particularly at secondary level is often determined by the
formal assessment system – typically written exams without any room for
modelling.
Therefore, research in the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling suffer
under the methodological challenge of researching something, which does not
necessarily exist before and independently of the research. Accordingly, research
in this field often includes the establishing of some experimental practice of teaching
in which modelling and application are playing a role. When researching the
possible effects of working with modelling on students’ attitudes towards mathe-
matics this challenge is reinforced. Students’ beliefs about and attitudes towards
mathematics and mathematics teaching are rather stable and based on their personal
experiences over periods of years. So experimental teaching introducing modelling
and application in a very limited period as part of a research study cannot be
expected to influence the students’ attitudes toward mathematics significantly.
Moreover, and more importantly, research on the possible effects in the affective
domain of working with mathematical modelling most related to the educational
justifications for integrating modelling and applications in the relevant mathematics
teaching practice.
The justification of mathematical modelling as an element of mathematics teach-
ing in general education has been an issue in the mathematics education research for
many years. Here I briefly state what I consider to be the three most important
arguments in favor of mathematical modelling as a central element in general
mathematics teaching (Blomhøj 2004):
1. Mathematical modelling bridges the gap between students’ real life experiences
and mathematics. It motives the students learning of mathematics, gives direct
cognitive support for the students’ conceptions, and it places mathematics in the
culture as a means to describe and understand real life situations.
210 M. Blomhøj

2. In the development of highly technological societies competences for setting up,

analysing and criticising mathematical models are of crucial importance. This is
the case both from an individual perspective in relations to opportunities and
challenges in education and work-life, and from the societal perspective in
relation to the need for an adequately educated workforce.
3. Mathematical models of different kinds and complexity are playing important
roles in the functioning and forming of societies based on high technologies.
Therefore, the development of an expert as well as layman competence to critique
mathematical models and the way they are used in decision making are becoming
imperatives for the maintaining and further development of democracy.
Of course mathematical modelling has different meanings at different educational
levels and these arguments should not be given equal importance at all levels. It is
clearly relevant to research the challenges and effects in the affective domain related
to realisations of these justifications in the practice of mathematics teaching.

References

Blomhøj, M. (2004). Mathematical modelling: A theory for practice. In International perspectives

on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 145–159). Gothenburg: National Center for Math-
ematics Education.
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 challenges (pp. 73–96). New York: Springer.
Blum, W., Galbraith, P. L., Henn, H., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and applications in
mathematics education. The 14th ICMI study. New York: Springer.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. ZDM, 38(2), 86–95.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Liljedahl, P. (2018). On the edges of flow: Student problem solving behavior. In S. Carreira,
N. Amado, & K. Jones (Eds.), Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem
solving: A focus on technology, creativity and affect. New York: Springer.
Commentary: Flow and Mathematical
Modelling: Issues of Balance

Lyn D. English

Abstract The four chapters in this third section provide an interesting and timely set
of studies that primarily address students’ experiences of “flow” (Csíkszentmihályi
1990) during mathematical modelling. Factors pertaining to attitude and engagement
are also featured in this section. Exploring affective components in students’ math-
ematical modelling is a challenging endeavour, especially when both constructs are
complex with a long history. This commentary discusses key aspects of each of the
chapters and highlights a few issues worthy of further research. The commentary
examines the notions of “concreteness” of mathematical modelling, interpretations
of flow in light of Liljedahl’s perspectives addressed in chapters “Chapter 10:
Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude
Toward Mathematics” and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling”, balancing context
and model generation, the intrinsic appeal of modelling problems for generating
flow, and the integration of modelling within other domains.

Keywords Affect · Flow · Concreteness · Context · Model generation ·

Cross-domain modelling

The four chapters in this third section provide an interesting set of studies that
primarily address students’ experiences of “flow” (Csíkszentmihályi 1990) during
mathematical modelling. Factors pertaining to attitude and engagement are also of
interest in this section. Examining affective components in students’ mathematical
modelling is a challenging endeavour, especially when both constructs are complex
with a long history (Chamberlin, chapter “Chapter 1: The Construct of Affect in
Mathematical Modelling”, Part I). In Chamberlin’s informative overview of the
history of affect and, more specifically, affect and mathematics education, it is
clear that the construct has progressively become more “convoluted” (p. 23) over
time. It is thus pleasing to see the chapters in this section confine their studies to just

L. D. English (*)
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
e-mail: l.english@qut.edu.au

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 211

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_13
212 L. D. English

a few components of affect, despite the considerable overlap in ideas and frameworks
across the chapters. Nevertheless, all four chapters provide a comprehensive account
of how flow, engagement, and attitude impact on students’ mathematical modelling. In
essence, the very nature of mathematical modelling is intimately connected to affect.
As the authors point out, both modelling and affect are multifacted constructs that
are interpreted variously in the literature. There is considerable overlap in definitions
of models and modelling across the chapters, with Blum and Leiss’ (2007) frame-
work and Borromeo Ferri’s (2006) representation of modelling processes referred to
frequently. Chamberlin’s chapter, however, provides a comprehensive introduction
to affect and modelling. In particular, for those not too familiar with models and
modelling, Chamberlin presents real-world examples of the pervasiveness of math-
ematical modelling in everyday life. Using a real-world example of a shopper trying
to exit a grocery store as soon as possible, Chamberlin illustrates how a shopper can
apply informal modelling in determining the fastest checkout from which to exit.
Taking such a meaningful example nicely illustrates some of the key features that are
reported in diagrammatic form in Part III.
In the remainder of this commentary I discuss interesting aspects of each of the
chapters and highlight a few points that could be considered further. I review the
notions of: (a) “concreteness” of mathematical modelling, (b) interpretations of flow
with a focus on Liljedahl’s perspectives as featured in both chapters “Chapter 10:
Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude
Toward Mathematics” and “Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling”, (c) balancing context
and model generation, (d) the intrinsic appeal of modelling problems for generating
flow, and (e) the integration of modelling within other domains.

“Concreteness” of Mathematical Modelling

Di Martino (chapter “Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical

Modelling and Attitude Towards Mathematics”) explores the complex relationship
between mathematical modelling and attitude towards mathematics. In doing so, he
presents a three-dimensional model for attitude, comprising “vision of mathemat-
ics”, emotions, and “perceived competence”. Although his chapter does not appear
to give equal attention to all three components, Di Martino nevertheless presents
interesting, although not completely unexpected, findings from his studies. Of
relevance to modelling is what di Matrino refers to as “concreteness” (p. 223), that
is, the degree to which the learner perceives the application of a mathematics
situation to a realistic one. Perhaps not surprising, the degree of concreteness
students found in mathematics problems declined with increasing grade level. This
decline reinforces the need to give greater attention to how we contextualise the
mathematical problems we present students—contextualisation and modelling go
hand-in-hand. Although traditional school word problems can claim to use realistic
contexts, the questions asked can often be unrealistic in the real world, as Di Martino
points out: “The choice of the problems (or activities) is therefore crucial: the context
has to be realistic and the posed questions significant” (p. 232). This is where
mathematical modelling comes to the fore. One of the motivating features of
Commentary: Flow and Mathematical Modelling: Issues of Balance 213

modelling is its relevance to the real world, not just to familiar contexts such as school
or neighbourhood environments, but also to challenging situations within these. Such
situations must hold meaning for students, must be inviting, and must be sufficiently
challenging yet within their capabilities. Liljedahl’s construct of “flow” in terms of
challenge and skill provides a useful framework for exploring these modelling features.

“Flow” and Modelling

Parhizgar and Liljedahl (chapter “Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its
Effects on Students’ Engagement and Attitude Toward Mathematics”) investigated
the impact of flow (specifically, engagement) and attitude in three types of problems,
namely, modelling problems, word problems, and basic exercises. The authors also
investigated the effects of teacher-centred and student-centred approaches on stu-
dents’ attitude towards and engagement in each of these problems. The results of
their questionnaires showed some surprising, and not so surprising results. With
respect to the unexpected findings, it was the word problems that yielded the highest
engagement before and after the intervention. The modelling problems were seen by
the students as being too difficult, suggesting an imbalance between challenge and
skill. Not surprisingly, the student-centred approach had a greater impact on stu-
dents’ attitude towards modelling problems, with students appreciating the group
work involved. What is rather troubling in Parhizgar and Liljedahl’s conclusions is
the recommendation that students be “sufficiently taught how to solve real-world
problems, especially how to do cycle modelling” (p. 251) so they can engage
effectively with modelling problems. I question this advice, which appears to
contradict the very nature and purpose of modelling problems. One of the many
benefits of engaging students in these problems is fostering their independent
application of mathematics knowledge and understanding to the solution of authen-
tic problems that allow for various approaches and solutions. With their “low floor”
and “high ceiling” features (English 2017, Gadanidis et al. 2018; Papert 1980)
modelling problems are designed to be within reach of all students, a point to
which I return. Furthermore, by implementing sequences of related modelling
problems (Doerr and English 2003), students can apply and extend their learning
to new situations without needing to be taught how to do so. One thus has to question
the design of some of the problems in Parhizgar and Liljedahl’s study.
Interestingly, in Liu and Liljedahl’s study (chapter “Chapter 12: Flow and
Modelling”) a rebalancing of the challenges and skills in a modelling problem was
undertaken to generate optimal flow. Quite rightly, the authors emphasize that flow
is not static; rather, the balance between ability and challenge is dynamic. In line
with my argument regarding the low floor/high ceiling feature of a modelling
problem, students’ skills usually improve as they engage in a modelling activity.
As Liu and Liljedahl point out, for students to remain in flow, the activity must be
such that its challenge likewise increases. On the other hand, should an activity fail
to be challenging, a “tolerance for the mundane and perseverance” (p. 277) can
ensure students continue with a problem. Likewise, tolerance and perseverance are
important when a problem’s challenge outstrips a student’s abilities at a particular
214 L. D. English

point. I would argue that this latter characteristic is especially salient for innovative
and creative thinking (Lucas and Nordgren 2015), a skill that is increasingly needed
in an age of disruption (Rösel et al. 2016).

Balancing Context and Model Generation

In illustrating the dynamic ways in which flow occurred during small group model-
ling involving designing a new school, Liu and Liljedahl highlight the important role
of contextualized knowledge in such problems. In the interesting excerpts of stu-
dents solving the problem, it was evident that the context was, at times,
overshadowing their model generation. Although Liu and Liljedahl do not mention
this point, it is worth commenting that, while a meaningful context is a core feature
of modelling problems, there is the issue of another imbalance occurring within the
dynamics of flow—that of contextual features versus model generation. It could be
argued that with increased awareness and knowledge of contextual features comes a
concomitant awareness of the need to balance context and modelling. On the other
hand, insufficient contextual knowledge or experience can hinder students’ solution
processes as was the case in Liu and Liljedahl’s problem where the students lacked
driver experience of manoeuvring cars in parking lots. Such imbalances between
context and modelling occur often in our lives. For example, many of us have
experienced frustrations with architects (and vice versa) when our desires for the
“perfect” home context need to be tempered with a consideration of core structural
features required in the architect’s house design.

Intrinsic Appeal of Modelling Problems for Generating Flow

Gjesteland and Vos (chapter “Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modelling
Assessment-A Case Study on Students’ Experience of Challenge and Flow During
a Compulsory Mathematical Modelling Task by Engineering Students”) present an
interesting variation in the nature of the modelling problem presented to students, in
their case, undergraduate engineering students. As a compulsory outdoor assign-
ment, with ample time for completion and accessible to all students, the modelling
problem was designed to facilitate flow. The task required students to select a
movement of an object of their choice, such as throwing a ball, jumping on their
skate board, or even driving a car. They were to film this movement with their
phones. Next, they were to “use free tracker software (http://physlets.org/tracker/) on
their laptops to transform the movement into measurements, approximate the move-
ment with a mathematical model, and then present their findings on a poster”
(p. 257). Detailing their model, the poster was to contain an introduction, their
observations (e.g., measurements), a mathematical model of the moving object’s
trajectory, and a discussion of the model’s accuracy in comparison to the actual
Commentary: Flow and Mathematical Modelling: Issues of Balance 215

measurements. An important point made by Gjesteland and Vos, which is not

emphasized as it should be in the other chapters, is that modelling lends itself to
multidisciplinary contexts and content. In their study, the activity was set at the
cross-roads of mathematics and physics. Interestingly, the authors chose not to use
the term, mathematics, in their presentation of the task primarily due to the students’
frequently negative view of the discipline.
In applying the flow construct of Csíkszentmihályi (1990), Gjesteland and Vos
again highlight the core issue explored in the other chapters, namely, that studying
affect when students are engaged in an activity can yield insights into different facets
of affect, such as emotions, perception of utility etc. The authors’ goal in their study
was to focus on students’ perceptions of “being challenged and activated by the
activities” (p. 263). An important point made by Gjesteland and Vos is that flow can
only occur if there is a degree of tension between challenge and skill. This feature of
a learning activity can often be overlooked in mathematics curricula, but is a core
element in maintaining students’ interest and thus motivation in the discipline.
Modelling problems are ideal examples here because of their affordances for
stimulating flow. One of the key characteristics of these problems is their intrinsic
appeal to a diversity of learners. Because the problems have multiple entry and exit
points, with more than one solution model possible, all students can achieve a sense of
satisfaction in model creation. Invoking Papert’s (1980) notion of creating tasks that
feature a low floor and high ceiling (although not citing this source), Gjesteland and
Vos rightly highlight modeling problems as excellent examples of such tasks. Because
modelling problems cater for a wide variety of achievement levels, all students can
experience a degree of flow even if mathematics is not their preferred discipline. It is
interesting how the authors deliberately avoided using the term, mathematics, in the
task and follow-up questionnaire with the aim of not deterring students for whom
mathematics had negative connotations. I would argue that such a decision might not
have been necessary given the inviting nature of the modelling assignment, which
many students found intrinsically worthwhile irrespective of it being an item of
assessment. Although Gjesteland and Vos did not report on their students’ discipline
learning, this is of course a core issue that cannot be overlooked. Elsewhere (e.g.,
English, November 2018) I have argued how modelling problems can foster learning
innovation across STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), involv-
ing student generation of both discipline content knowledge and the adaptation and
application of this knowledge to the solution of new problems.

Integration and Modelling

An aspect that could have been emphasised more in this section is the integration of
modelling within the other STEM disciplines and other areas of the curriculum.
Although the focus of this book is on affect and mathematical modelling, the
incorporation of other domains together with different cultural and social contexts
(Anhalt et al. 2018; Verschaffel et al. 2009) can add to the intrinsic appeal of these
modelling experiences. It is beyond the scope of this commentary to elaborate on
216 L. D. English

these points but worthwhile examples include engineering-based modelling (e.g.,

English and Mousoulides 2009, 2011, 2015), modelling based on historical accounts
involving first settlements and associated social issues (e.g., English 2016), and
modelling involving ecosystems (e.g., Moore et al. 2014).

Concluding Points

As the chapters in this section have demonstrated, issues pertaining to affect in

mathematical modelling are manifold. The present chapters, and indeed the book as
a whole, provide much needed research on affective components that remain under-
represented in studies on modelling. Yet the very nature of mathematical modelling
invokes aspects of flow and positive attitude. Indeed, if a modelling problem creates
a pleasing balance between challenge and skill, then flow should occur naturally for
the student and use of the term, mathematics, should not be a deterrent.
In exploring several foundational affective issues, the chapters raise further points
needing attention. One aspect pertains to the design and implementation of model-
ling problems that capitalise on students’ natural talents and enable all students to
experience the success that flow can bring. Modelling problems have several
intrinsic features that are absent in many other mathematics learning experiences;
the links between these features and various components of affect demand more
investigation. Indeed, a subsequent volume on affect and mathematical modelling
would be another welcome addition to the literature.

References

Anhalt, C. O., Staats, S., & Cortez, R. (2018). Mathematical modeling and culturally relevant
pedagogy. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and
culture in STEM education (pp. 307–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-
4_14.
Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling
problems? The example sugarloaf and the DISUM project. In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith, W.
Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics.
ICTMA 12 (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. ZDM, 38(2), 86–95.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modelling perspective on students’ mathematical
reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136.
English, L. D. (2016). Developing early foundations through modeling with data. In C. Hirsch
(Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Mathematical modeling and modeling
mathematics (pp. 187–195). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. 17, 347–365.
Commentary: Flow and Mathematical Modelling: Issues of Balance 217

English, L. D. (2018, forthcoming). Disruption and learning innovation cross STEM. Plenary paper
to be presented at the 5th international STEM in education conference, 21st–23rd November,
Brisbane.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2009). Integrating engineering education within the elementary
and middle school mathematics curriculum. In B. Sriraman, V. Freiman, & N. Lirette-Pitre
(Eds.), Interdisciplinarity, creativity, and learning: Mathematics with literature, paradoxes,
history, technology, and modelling (pp. 165–175). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2011). Engineering-based modelling experiences in the
elementary classroom. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive
tools for scientific enquiry (Models and Modeling in Science Education Series) (pp. 173–194).
Dordrecht: Springer.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real-world problem. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 20(9), 532–539.
Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young
mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32–53.
Lucas, B. J., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). People underestimate the value of persistence for creative
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 232–243.
Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., & Brown, A. (2014). Greenhouse design: An engineering unit. Science
Scope, 37(7), 51–57.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Rösel, A., Műnch, J., Richardson, I., Rausch, A., & Zhang, H. (Eds.). (2016). Are we ready for
disruptive improvement? In M. Kuhrmann, et al. (Eds.), Managing software process evolution
(pp. 77–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31545-4_5.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Van Dooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2009). Words and
worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship
Between Mathematical Modeling and
Attitude Towards Mathematics

Pietro Di Martino

Abstract This chapter addresses the relationship between the promotion of math-
ematical modeling in the classroom – in particular linking mathematics and authentic
real mathematics problem – and students’ attitude towards mathematics. This rela-
tionship has a twofold nature, based on two assumptions: on one hand mathematical
modeling can help to construct or reinforce the belief concerning the utility and
concreteness of mathematics, and therefore it can foster motivation in studying
mathematics; on the other hand a positive attitude towards mathematics can strongly
affect the way students approach real mathematics problems.

Keywords Mathematical modeling · Problem solving · Modeling cycle · Attitude

towards mathematics · Perceived utility of mathematics

Mathematical Modeling and Attitude Towards Mathematics:

The Issue of Definition

Mathematical modeling and attitude towards mathematics are two hot constructs in
mathematics education: in the last two decades, a great amount of literature about
them has been developed.
Both constructs are also used in everyday language with a naïve and not well-
defined meaning. For this reason, a lot of work in the literature has been devoted to
clearly defining these constructs.
Concerning attitude, we have addressed in depth the definition issue (Di Martino
and Zan 2015): first developing a critical analysis of the existing literature
(Di Martino and Zan 2001), then developing a definition of attitude towards math-
ematics strictly linked to students’ experience and emerging from students’ narra-
tives (Di Martino and Zan 2010, 2011).

P. Di Martino (*)
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
e-mail: pietro.di.martino@unipi.it

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 219

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_14
220 P. Di Martino

In our study for the characterization of attitude, we used a narrative approach in

order to investigate the dimensions students used to describe their relationship with
mathematics. This choice is consistent with an interpretative approach: we wanted to
give voice to the students and allow them to describe the aspects they themselves
considered relevant for their experience with mathematics. In particular, we pro-
posed the essay ‘Me and maths: my relationship with mathematics up to now’ in
several Italian schools.
According to Bruner (1990), we have assumed that – through autobiographical
narratives – students would have introduced causal links between facts. These links
do not have a logical perspective but rather a social, ethical and psychological one.
Our goal was to construct what Spence (1982) calls narrative truth: this truth may be
closely linked, loosely similar, or far removed from the objective truth. On the other
hand, as Bruner (1990, pp. 119–120) claims:
It does not matter whether the account conforms to what others might say who were
witnesses, nor are we in pursuit of such ontologically obscure issues as whether the account
is ‘self-deceptive’ or ‘true’. Our interest, rather, is only in what the person thought he did,
what he thought he was in, and so on.

We established two main rules to collect the narrative data: essays were anony-
mous and they were assigned and collected in the class not by the class mathematics
teacher. These two rules were given in order to leave the students free to describe
even criticism and strong negative emotions towards either mathematics or teachers:
We collected 1496 essays ranging from grade 2 to grade 13: 707 from primary school (grade
2–5), 369 from middle school (grade 6–8), 420 from high school (grade 9–13).

The analysis of the collected narratives suggests that almost all students describe
their relationship with mathematics referring to one (or more) of the following three
dimensions:
• Their emotional disposition towards mathematics,
• Their vision of mathematics,
• Their perceived competence in mathematics.
This analysis has also suggested the development of a three-dimensional model
for characterizing attitude towards mathematics (TMA) represented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 The three-

dimensional model for
attitude
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 221

Fig. 2 The mathematical

modeling process

TMA takes explicitly into account the close relationship among the three
dimensions.
For what concerns mathematical modeling, the path towards a shared definition
has been less rough, but not immediate.
A first important aspect in the educational context is the distinction between
model mathematics and mathematical modeling (Cirillo et al. 2016). The use of
concrete objects to facilitate children’s understanding of abstract mathematical
concepts (i.e. the operation of modeling mathematics) is different from
“mathematizing authentic situations” (Yerushalmy 1997, p. 207). De Corte et al.
(2000, p. 66) define mathematical modeling as the application of mathematics to
solve problem situations in the real world. Using their words, mathematical model-
ing is:
A complex process involving a number of phases (. . .). As several authors have stressed, this
process of solving mathematical application problems has to be considered as cyclic, rather
than as a linear progression from givens to goals.

We can characterize mathematical modeling starting by two elements: a prob-

lematic real-life situation (the authentic situation quoted by Yerushalmy) and a
specific approach to the situation (the mathematical modeling cycle recalled by
Verschaffel et al.).
There are many schemas for the mathematical modeling cycle, but almost all
essentially involve the following four phases proposed by Dossey et al. (2002):
Formulation, Analysis, Interpretation, Test (see Fig. 2).
If in classroom practice students are mainly engaged in the Analysis phase – that
is, they are confined to the mathematical world – Formulation and Interpretation
appear to be two key-phases in the mathematical modeling process. As a matter of
fact, they are the two phases in which the mathematical world and the real world are
interconnected. As Pollak highlights (2003, p. 649):
What distinguishes modeling from other forms of applications of mathematics are (1) explicit
attention at the beginning of the process of getting from the problem outside of mathematics
to its mathematical formulation, and (2) an explicit reconciliation between the mathematics
and the real-word situation at the end.
222 P. Di Martino

Mathematical Modeling and Attitude Towards Mathematics

in the School Standards

In the NCTM News Bullettin of the September 1999 (Lappan 1999), the past
President of NCTM recognized:
We have not traditionally taken much responsibility for fostering students’ attitudes toward
mathematics and their perceptions of their own role in learning the subject.

She underlined the need to consider affective goals in the teaching of mathemat-
ics, and in the new millennium, the attention to the affective goal in mathematics
education has surely grown. For example, the OECD-PISA framework (OECD
2016) includes the attitudes in the parameters used to assess students’ performance.
The promotion of mathematical modeling in the mathematics curriculum at all
school levels is, by now, fostered in several official documents (Burkhardt 2006).
Recently, a document called Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Mathe-
matical Modeling Education (GAIMME) has been developed with input from the
NCTM, in order to encourage teachers in incorporating the practice of mathematical
modeling in their classrooms. The document discusses the reasons for this attention:
Mathematical modelling can be used to motivate curricular requirements and can highlight
the importance and relevance of mathematics in answering important questions. It can also
help students gain transferable skills, such as habits of mind that are pervasive across subject
matter. (VV.AA. 2016, p. 8)

In the Italian context, the development of a positive attitude has become an official
goal in National Standards for the first cycle of instruction (from grade 1 to grade 8).
In particular, one of the goals for the development of mathematical competence at
the end of middle school is (MIUR 2012): “the student has strengthened a positive
attitude toward mathematics through significant experiences and s/he has under-
stood how mathematics is useful to operate in the real world”.
This goal is interesting because it links attitude towards mathematics and math-
ematical modeling, evoking the two key elements for mathematical modeling: ‘to
operate’ and the ‘real-world’.
One reason to promote mathematical modeling is also the contribution modeling
can give to a deeper comprehension of curricular mathematics (Blum and Borromeo
2009; Zbiek and Conner 2006). The GAIMME document reports other two main
motivations for promoting mathematical modeling in the classroom:
– To show the utility of mathematics skills in extra-mathematical contexts and for
extra-mathematical purposes. This can help to develop a positive view of math-
ematics, to consolidate sense-making in and of mathematics and, definitely, to
foster motivation for the study of mathematics (Niss 2012). This goal is clearly
related to the assumed definition of attitude: it includes emotional aspects and the
view of mathematics (what it is and how it can be used);
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 223

– To prepare students to work professionally with mathematical modeling and to

provide them with opportunities to link mathematics to other areas of the curric-
ulum. In some sense, the development of skills related to mathematical modeling
is a goal in itself (Zbiek and Conner 2006).
In particular, the first goal highlights the supposed link between attitude towards
mathematics (emotional disposition and view of mathematics) and mathematical
modeling. This link becomes explicit in the development of the theoretical frame-
work for the definition and assessment of mathematical literacy.
Based on the seminal work of Niss (2003), OECD-PISA assumed the following
definition of mathematical literacy:
Mathematical literacy is an individual’s capacity to formulate, employ, and interpret math-
ematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathemat-
ical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena. It
assists individuals to recognise the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the
well-founded judgments and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective
citizens. (OECD 2016, p. 65)

Mathematical literacy includes the capacity to use mathematics in a variety of

contexts but also the awareness of the role that mathematics plays in the world (view
of math).
The shared main assumption of the discussed documents is that mathematical
modeling can help to construct or reinforce the belief concerning the utility and the
concreteness of mathematics. It is also assumed that the promotion of this view of
mathematics acts on the emotional disposition dimension of the TMA-model for
attitude: fostering motivation in studying mathematics and developing positive
emotions towards mathematics.
In the following, we will critically approach these set of assumptions, discussing
the complexity of the relationship between mathematical modeling and attitude
towards mathematics on the basis of the educational literature and findings of
different studies we have conducted.
In particular, we will focus on two of three dimensions of the TMA-model for
attitude: emotional disposition and vision of mathematics (with special reference to
the perceived utility and concreteness of mathematics).

The Perceived Utility of Mathematics and Mathematical

Modeling

In the analysis of the narrative data collected in order to characterize the students’
attitude towards mathematics, the perceived utility of mathematics is one of the most
recurrent themes in students’ narratives: it is therefore a main component of the
students’ vision of mathematics.
224 P. Di Martino

With respect to this issue, a difference between the primary level and the other
levels stands out and appears to be particularly interesting. The evolution of opinions
and views is clear: there is an evident shift from the belief that mathematics is
essential – strongly present at the primary level and testified by the very high number
of occurrences of expressions like “math is useful”, “math is important”, “math
serves to” – to the idea that mathematics is useless. The word “useless”, practically
absent in essays at the primary level, has almost twice as many occurrences as
“useful” at the other school levels.
What could be the reasons for this worrisome evolution?
The analysis of the narratives highlights two main issues.
The first one is the evolution in the students’ conception of utility of mathematics
during the school period: particularly relevant appears the distinction between
individual and social utility of mathematics. The second issue is the relationship
between utility and concreteness of mathematics.
In the following, we will discuss these two issues and the possible role of the
promotion of mathematical modeling in this evolutionary phenomenon.
An interesting phenomenon at the primary level is the identification between
mathematics as a science and mathematics as a school subject:
Mathematics is indispensable for “running the world”. It is necessary for everything.
Without mathematics, we could not do many things; without mathematics, we could not
know anything. Probably mathematics is the most important school subject. [4P.37]1

The distinction between mathematics as a science and mathematics as a school

subject emerges in the following school levels. It is particularly relevant because it is
at the basis of another distinction: that between social utility and individual utility of
mathematics.
Niss (2003) underlines how this distinction produces a sort of paradox (he calls it
“the relevance paradox”): even there is a general agreement around the role that
mathematics plays in the modern society, many, if not most students (and also
adults) have increasing difficulty at seeing mathematics relevant to them, as indi-
viduals. In other words, the utility of mathematics for the development of the society
does not imply that the knowledge of some elements of mathematics is considered
essential for every single individual. In particular, the social relevance of mathemat-
ics does not automatically justify why the single individual should study mathemat-
ics. This consideration questions the link between the perception of social relevance
of mathematics and motivation in studying it.
This point of view was clearly stated by Vinner in his regular lecture at ICME
9 (Vinner 2007, p. 2):
We live in a mathematical world, says the above Principles and Standards document,
whenever we decide on a purchase, choose insurance or health plan, or use a spreadsheet,
we rely on mathematical understanding... The level of mathematical thinking and problem
solving needed in the workplace has increased dramatically. . . . Mathematical competence

1
Here and in the next excerpts the first number refers to the grade, the letter refers to the school level
(Primary/Middle/High), the last number indicates the progressive numbering of the essay within the
category.
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 225

opens doors to productive future. A lack of mathematical competence closes those doors.
This is not the place to elaborate in length how misleading are these claims. In short I will say
only the following: No doubt mathematical knowledge is crucial to produce and maintain the
most important aspects of our present life. This does not imply that the majority of people
should know mathematics.

The clear distinction between the social and the individual conception of utility of
mathematics is relevant also in the secondary-tertiary transition. In 2002, within a
3-year Italian Project on the evolution of students’ attitude towards mathematics, we
developed a study on the relationship between secondary students’ attitude toward
mathematics and their choices of how many and which mathematics courses to take
in college (Di Martino and Morselli 2006).
An open questionnaire was distributed to 1837 students attending 12th and 13th
grades of secondary school: the students had half an hour to fill out the questionnaire
in an anonymous way.
We divided the sample into four groups on the basis of the declared emotional
dispositions towards mathematics: very positive, positive, negative and very nega-
tive. Then, we characterized the four groups according to the answers to the
questionnaires.
In particular, one item was: “Choose 3 adjectives to describe mathematics”. The
analysis of the answers to this item was particularly insightful for the issue of utility
of mathematics.
On the one hand, the adjective ‘useful’ is one of the most widely used in the
answers to our questionnaire (376 occurrences). It was present in all groups and it did
not characterize any group. On the other hand, the adjective ‘useless’ is recurrent in
the very negative group and strongly characterises the group (chi2 ¼ 206,07).
A possible interpretation of this is that the word useful is related to the social
aspect while useless to the individual aspect. In any case, this result was significant
for the research on affective factors. As a matter of fact, many traditional quantitative
instruments (like validated Likert scales) use the item “mathematics is useful” to
measure attitude. The implicit assumption is that the agreement with this sentence is
related to a positive emotion, and consequently to a positive attitude toward math-
ematics. This assumption is strongly questionable: our results show how agreement
and disagreement with respect to the belief “math is useful” are not symmetrical from
the emotional viewpoint.
The belief that mathematical utility is associated with a positive emotional
disposition is also questioned by the analysis of students’ narratives: as a matter of
fact, many students state “I do not like math” although they recognize its utility and
sometimes even its indispensability.
Another crucial difference between primary students and older students in the
approach to the utility of mathematics is the fact that, at the primary level, the utility
of mathematics is recognised in the (presumed) fact that school mathematics faces
with concrete situations and learned mathematics is implementable immediately in
the real life:
In my opinion, mathematics is needed to do calculations faster, to calculate how many miles
two cities are distant, how many square meters a field is extended; to draw a square, a circle
226 P. Di Martino

or a triangle; to know how much you have to pay; to know how many grams or kilograms of
strawberries mum has gathered in the field; to buy a liter of water. Mathematics is needed for
everything. [4P.59]

This belief is probably also conveyed by the teacher in order to motivate children,
but our narratives show as to identify the utility of mathematics in its immediate
implementability can have a boomerang effect. As a matter of fact, many students
wonder why they have to continue studying maths after learning the notorious
“learning to calculate”:
Mathematics is, of course, useful, but not always easy to apply. I wonder: when will I use an
equation in my daily life?!? [3M.27]
Another thing that contributes to my opinion about math is the fact that mathematical
knowledge, apart from the elementary operations or the proportions that are used every-
where, is not used in everyday life. [3H.61]
Mathematics is surely one of the most important subjects amongst those we have at school.
Being able to write, read, and perform numeric operations has always been one of the
primary needs of a man. However, most of the topics we learn in mathematics are not used in
real life, unless you decide to undertake a well-defined job direction. [3H.23]
Mathematics. . .a word which is as complex as its calculations, radical numbers, expressions
and most of all lines, which, to me, are meaningless lines and also I don’t understand, except
simple calculations, sums, divisions and multiplications, what the other things are for in
one’s life if they do not decide to become a teacher or an engineer? [4H.14]

Sometimes this view appears as early as the elementary level. In this case the
emotional engagement of the narrator is typically negative and very strong. In this
respect, the following essay is particularly significant:
To me mathematics is only a waste of time because once you have learned numbers, you can
just stop, but no, we continue and lessons start to torture you slowly and it is an awful feeling
when I write and don’t understand, and it seems to me I’m going down to hell: I start
sweating from head to feet, I turn completely red and I feel like I’m exploding. [3P.28]

In the students’ narrative, the concreteness of mathematics is comprehensibly

related to the perception of the degree of application of the learned mathematics to a
realistic situation.
The exposition to contextualized problems plays a crucial role in this perception
and it is undoubted that mathematical word problems have a long tradition and an
important role in mathematics teaching at primary school.
If it is true that mathematical modeling and solving mathematical word problems
are not the same thing (Erbas et al. 2014), it is also true that we recognize many
similarities between them2 and that word problems appear to be the unique possible
simulation of modeling in the first school levels. The most important reason for using

2
Our view is different from the one of Lingerfjard (2002): according to him it is unreasonable to
compare the activity around word problems with that around modeling.
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 227

word problems in primary school is exactly to train pupils to apply the formal
mathematical knowledge to real-world situations (Verschaffel et al. 1994).
According to this picture, a first clear difference between the primary level and
the others emerging from our narratives is the growth of abstraction in school
mathematics and the tendency to abandon word problems in favour of proposing
problems in a purely mathematical context:
My hate towards mathematics started from the year of high school when mathematics has
become increasingly abstract and less applicable to everyday life. [3S.7]
My doubt about the usefulness of mathematics grew over time during my period in middle
school, reaching its peak at the high school where mathematics deals with completely
abstract arguments and you ask yourself: what is it necessary to solve a derivative in my
future? [5S.1]

Obviously, we can argue long about what being able to solve a derivate can be
useful for, but, apart from that, this tendency to perceive mathematics as increasingly
abstract is evident in our narratives: in some sense, it is even an educational choice.
If therefore, contextualized problems have a role in the different assessments of
the degree of concreteness of mathematics, it is also true that mathematics education
literature has developed an extensive and meaningful criticism to school word
problems, and in particular to their presumed realism.
In particular, it has discussed that contextualization of traditional school word
problems often appears to be artificial (Zan 2011) and that students tend to ignore
contextual consideration when solving these problems (Lesh and Doerr 2003;
Merseth 1993; Verschaffel et al. 1994). As Mellone et al. underline (2017, p. 1):
The more pupils advance in their school path, the more we can witness a tendency to
unthinkingly apply arithmetic operations when responding to word problems, without
critically considering the reality that the word problem is actually referring to.

This does not mean that pupils in the early grades recognize the context described
in word problem as artificial, rather that they act regardless of the specific context. As
described by many authors (Greer 1997; Van Dooren et al. 2006) this alarming
‘disregard’ is strongly affected by some didactical choices. In particular, the fact that
the typical school word problems can almost always be solved through the use of one
or more arithmetic operations with the numerical data given in the text (Verschaffel
et al. 1994). This implies that students do not need to consider and construct a
situation model to get the right answer: to by-pass the text, without considering the
context, becomes a winning strategy in order to get the right answer quickly (Zan
2011). The fact that this strategy is typically winning in the school context reinforces
what D’Amore and Martini (1999) called formal delegation clause: when the
student, computing some arithmetic operations, obtains the numerical result to the
problem he just has to state it, whatever it is, no matter what it means in the
problematic starting context.
As is evident from the analysis of our narratives, in the early grades, the
application of mathematics to trading situations appears to the pupils as proof of
the concreteness, and consequently usefulness, of mathematics.
228 P. Di Martino

This emerges clearly from our narrative data, the majority of occurrences of the
expression “mathematics is useful” in primary students’ narratives is referred to
trading situations:
Mathematics is useful because people who want to work in the bakery, in the market or in a
toy shop will have to do their calculations well. [3P.21]
Mathematics is essential because when we do the shopping someone can cheat you with the
change. [4P.1]

It is interesting that we found a strong and widespread criticism of the presumed

utility of the mathematical word problems used in primary school almost only in the
memories of the older students:
Already when I was six years old, I did not understand why the teacher gave us the
traditional problems regarding shopping in the everyday life. When she began to dictate
the text, automatically a big smile would appear on my face. It was a ridiculous thing for me
since it was my mother who was busy looking at foodstuff, paying a certain amount of
money, etc. [2H.45]

This excerpt highlights how some situations – considered realistic at the age of
elementary students – show all their limits in term of concreteness as students
grow up.
Sometimes, the alleged concreteness and realism of the primary word problems is
(rightly so?) even ridiculed in secondary students’ narratives:
We more or less wrote: “Mrs. Pina left the tap open. If 2 cubic meters of water per hour come
out, how many hours are needed to flood her 400-cubic meter apartment?” Poor Mrs. Pina! I
hope for her she has closed the tap before she gets submerged! [4P.1]

The reported excerpt is an example of how older students not only perceive the
contexts described in mathematical word problems as different from the real world,
but they also recognize the questions posed as artificial questions. Indeed, as Zan
(2011) underlines, in the majority of the cases, the questions in mathematical word
problems do not follow in a narrative way from the context, but they are artificial
questions about the context. This observation is crucial for our discussion because it
underlines the role of two components in the perception of the degree of concrete-
ness of a mathematical word problem: the context and the posed question. If only
one of these components is perceived as artificial, the problem will be perceived as
artificial.
The disconnection between mathematical word problems and concreteness has at
least two worrisome consequences.
On the one hand, this disconnection is one of the causes of the well-known
phenomenon of children’s suspension of sense-making during mathematical prob-
lem solving (Greer 1997; Schoenfeld 1991). In particular, children answer mathe-
matical word problems without considering the reality that the context of the
problem could recall. This is obviously a big issue for the development of modeling
competence because – as observed by Verschaffel et al. (2002) – it leads to an
atrophied version of the modeling cycle (Fig. 1), where the two phases in which the
mathematical world and the real world are interconnected (Formulation and Inter-
pretation) are bypassed.
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 229

Fig. 3 The three

mountains test

On the other hand, from an affective point of view, the disconnection between
word problems and real word reinforces the belief that mathematics is unrelated to
the real world. In this case, problems that describe a realistic context posing an
artificial question are particularly insidious because they foster the idea that math-
ematics is not related to any real human interest.
About this, the pioneering study by Margaret Donaldson (1978) offers a very
interesting definition of “concreteness” of a problem. She develops this definition to
give an alternative interpretation of the children’s results in the famous Piagetian
three mountains test (see Fig. 3).
In the test, using a model of three mountains, where the mountains are distin-
guished from one another by some details (the snow on one, on house on the top of
another, etc.), the experimenter puts a doll in another position with respect the child
(Piaget and Inhelder 1967). The child is given a set of some pictures of the model
taken from different angles and has to indicate the one representing what the doll
sees. Usually, children below the age of seven choose the picture representing their
own point of view. Piaget uses these results to conclude that children of this age are
unable to enter in the point of view of others.
Donaldson criticizes Piaget’s interpretation on the basis of the results of younger
children (between the ages of 3 and 5 years) to a test developed by Martin Hughes
(1975). In this test, the child is asked to hide a boy doll in a plastic model so two
policemen placed in the model do not see it. To be successful the child had to
consider and to coordinate two external points of view. Well, 90% of children’s
responses were correct!
Moreover, considering the differences between the requests of two tests, it is hard
– if not impossible – to reconcile these findings with Piaget’s conclusions: children
230 P. Di Martino

appear to be able to consider (and coordinate) others’ points of view. Donaldson’s

interpretation is related to the authenticity of the tasks in their entirety (situation and
question):
The point is that the motives and intentions of the characters are entirely comprehensible,
even to a child of three. The task [in Hughes’ test] requires the child to act in ways which are
in line with certain very basic human purposes and interactions (escape and pursuit) —it
makes human sense. Thus it is not at all hard to convey to the child what he is supposed to
do: he apprehends it instantly [. . .]
In respect of being humanly comprehensible, the “mountains” task is at the opposite
extreme. Within this task itself, there is no play of interpersonal motives of such a kind as to
make it instantly intelligible. (There is the question of the experimenter’s motives in asking
the child to do it and of the child’s motives in responding, but that is quite another matter.)
Thus the “mountains” task is abstract in a psychologically very important sense: in the
sense that it is abstracted from all basic human purposes and feelings and endeavors. It is
totally cold-blooded. In the veins of three-year-olds, the blood still runs warm. (Donaldson
1978, p. 17)

Donaldson clearly explains as this idea of concreteness/abstraction in a psycho-

logically sense can affect children’s understanding of the task and so their
behaviours.
On the other hand, it seems by our narratives that this idea is unconscious in
elementary students. Surely this conception of concreteness becomes more clear and
explicit in older students:
My relationship with math has not always been unhappy. At elementary school, it was one of
the few subjects that I was passionate about, perhaps because the problems to solve seemed
practical and the purpose was clear. I could not identify a precise date, but in the middle
school, the first difficulties in mathematics began [. . .] The goal of learning certain strange-
ness was unknown for me. In my thoughts, mathematical contents appeared abstract and I
did not see anything that could serve me in everyday life [. . .] I did not feel enriched by
studying math and the desire to learn, know and deepen a so complex and wide matter did
not grow in me. [5H.22]

This idea of abstraction in a psychological sense should always be kept in mind

when we want to foster mathematical modeling in the classroom with the intention of
promoting a positive attitude towards mathematics. It highlights the relevance of the
choice of a concrete activity, in terms of the context involved and of the question
posed.
For example, in the Italian context, many controversies have been caused by the
modeling problem proposed in the 2017 national graduation exam for scientific high
schools (Fig. 4).
The problem asked to study the motion of a square-wheeled tricycle. The text of
the problem underlines the existence of a model of a strange such tricycle at
New York’s Museum of Mathematics.
In Italy, the modeling problem at the graduation exam was introduced – according
to the new standard (MIUR 2010) – in the scholastic year 2014–2015. The explicit
goals are to assess students’ modeling competence and to show that they are able to
connect the learned mathematics and their everyday life.
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 231

Fig. 4 The modeling problem in the 2017 Italian graduation exam

The square-wheeled tricycle problem is a good example of the difference between

the literal meaning of the adverb concreteness and the affective meaning: the specific
object exists, it is concrete in the literal meaning, but the problem (the context and
the related question) is probably far from most students’ interests and everyday life
and therefore it is abstract in the sense introduced by Donaldson.
This kind of modeling is likely to obtain a negative effect: it can reinforce the
opinion that mathematics deals only with abstract situations.
We have discussed some critical aspects related to the presumed utility and
concreteness of school mathematics (vision of mathematics), their consequences of
students’ emotions (emotional disposition towards mathematics) and the role (and
critical aspects) of promoting mathematical modeling in classroom. That is, we have
discussed the relationship between two dimensions of the TMA-model for attitude
towards mathematics and mathematical modeling.

Conclusions

The relationship between mathematical modeling and attitude towards mathematics

is more complex than it seems. It is very difficult to model any (even simple) real
situation using basic mathematical knowledge developed in the school mathematics
education. Therefore mathematical modeling is often declined in a simplified ver-
sion: the resolution of mathematical word problems. This choice introduces some
critical issues because of the differences between mathematical modeling and word
problem solving.
232 P. Di Martino

The first one is that mathematical modeling involves authentic real-life context
while the context of the word problems is an idealized real-life situation (Lesh and
Zawojewski 2007). The choice of the problems (or activities) is therefore crucial: the
context has to be realistic and the posed questions significant.
The second one is placed in the culture of the classroom wherein word problems
are often presented in a stereotyped way (Greer 1997) developing automatic reac-
tions in students rather than a strategic approach that should be the real goal of
problem solving activity (it is the goal of competence).
It is evident that the implementation of mathematical modeling in the classroom
could have a great potential both for cognitive and for affective goals. As a matter of
fact, it can promote the development of the specific competence related to mathe-
matical modeling – that is an important goal of education in itself (Niss 2012) – and
it can help to develop a positive attitude towards mathematics, showing the utility of
learned math and therefore fostering motivation in studying it. On the other hand, the
implementation of mathematical modeling in the classroom is often inhibited by its
cognitive and didactical complexity.
It emerges a sort of recurrent educational schema: mathematical modeling is
considered too complex to be implemented in classroom; it is replaced (sometimes
identified) by the resolution of simple word problems. These problems often are
abstract in the sense of Donaldson, unrealistic, and their solutions involve only
automatic and not strategic actions.
In this way a corrupted idea of utility of mathematics and of mathematics
education is developed since the primary school level. We believe that a completely
different conception of utility of mathematics should be developed since the first
school levels, repudiating its presumed immediate implementability in (equally
presumed) concrete situations.
The utility of mathematics education should be related to a crucial aspect also for
mathematical modeling: the development of a critical approach towards the real
world, fostering the desire to understand the reason for an observed phenomenon.
This idea of utility is clearly related to the idea of active citizenship, therefore it has a
universal value and it justifies the teaching of mathematics for all students, regardless
of their specific future choices.
On the other hand, the coherence between explicit goals of mathematics educa-
tion and didactical choices is crucial. This appears clearly in the following narrative
with which we want to close this chapter:
Now I am OK, but not because I am able to reason with the formulas, but because I just apply
them. I am sure that if I had to take a test that asks “whys” about the formulas I could not
write a single word. Continuing along my path, linear equations, quadratic equations and
radicals are not useful in the world of tourism, but these things we do to learn to reason,
right. . .? But, if I do them because I know the rules but I don’t understand them, what do I
need them for? There are people who spend their lives studying mathematics, but I ask
myself how can they do that. If I could, math would be a subject that I would quit studying,
since Ì hate it. I think that this “feeling” depends on the fact that I have always studied
through rote memorization, mechanically, without worrying about really understanding the
exercise that I was to solve. Is it my fault or the teachers’ fault? [2H.17]
Chapter 9: The Complex Relationship Between Mathematical Modeling and. . . 233

References

Blum, W., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt?
Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1, 45–58.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and
the future. ZDM, 38(2), 178–195.
Cirillo, M., Pelesko, J., Felton-Koestler, M., & Rubel, L. (2016). Perspectives on modeling in
school mathematics. In Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Mathematical modeling
and modeling mathematics (pp. 3–16). Reston: NCTM.
D’Amore, B., & Martini, B. (1999). Didactical contract, mental and intuitive models in solving
standard school problems. In A. Gagatsis (Ed.), A multidimensional approach to learning in
mathematics and science (pp. 3–24). Nicosia: Intercollege.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Greer, B. (2000). Connecting mathematics problem solving to the
real world. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference on mathematics
education into the 21st century: Mathematics for living (pp. 66–73). Amman: National Center
for Human Resources Development.
Di Martino, P., & Morselli, F. (2006). Maths avoidance and the choice of university. In J. Novotná,
H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the
international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 425–432). Prague:
PME.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2001). Attitude toward mathematics: Some theoretical issues. In M. van
den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 351–358). Utrecht: PME.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2010). ‘Me and maths’: Towards a definition of attitude grounded on
students’ narratives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–48.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2011). Attitude towards mathematics: A bridge between beliefs and
emotions. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(4), 471–482.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2015). The construct of attitude in mathematics education. In B. Pepin &
B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education
(pp. 51–72). Heidelberg: Springer.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana Press.
Dossey, J., McCrone, S., Giordano, F., & Weir, M. (2002). Mathematics methods and modeling for
today’s classroom: A contemporary approach to teaching grades 7–12. Pacific Grove: Brooks/
Cole.
Erbas, A., Kertil, M., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., Alacaci, C., & Bas, S. (2014). Mathematical
modelling in mathematics education: Basic concepts and approaches. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1621–1627.
Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems.
Learning and Instruction, 7, 293–307.
Hughes, M. (1975). Egocentrism in pre-school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edin-
burgh University.
Lappan, G. (1999, September). Fostering a good mathematical disposition. NCTM News Bulletin.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics
teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond construc-
tivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and
teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Reston: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lingefjärd, T. (2002). Mathematical modeling for preservice teachers: A problem from anesthesi-
ology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 117–143.
234 P. Di Martino

Mellone, M., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). The effect of rewording and dyadic
interaction on realistic reasoning in solving word problems. The Journal of Mathematical
Behaviour, 46, 1–12.
Mershet, K. (1993). How old is the shepherd? An essay about mathematics education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 74, 548–554.
MIUR. (2010). Indicazioni Nazionali per i licei [Italian National Standards for Lyceums]. Retrieved
February 22, 2018, from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/licei2010/indicazioni_nuovo_
impaginato/_decreto_indicazioni_nazionali.pdf
MIUR. (2012). Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo di
istruzione [Italian National Standards for kindergarten and the first cycle of instruction].
Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.indicazioninazionali.it/documenti_Indicazioni_
nazionali/indicazioni_nazionali_infanzia_primo_ciclo.pdf
Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM
project. In A. Gagatsis & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Mediterranean
conference on mathematical education (pp. 115–124). Athens: Hellenic Mathematical Society.
Niss, M. (2012, December). Models and modelling in mathematics education. EMS Newsletter,
2012, 49–52.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic
and financial literacy. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.
Pollak, H. (2003). A history of the teaching of modeling. In G. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A
history of school mathematics (pp. 647–669). Reston: NCTM.
Schoenfeld, A. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate
divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal
reasoning and education (pp. 311–343). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psycho-
analysis. New York: Norton.
Van Dooren, W., Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Bock, D. (2006). Modelling for life: Developing
adaptive expertise in mathematical modelling from an early age. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy,
M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends
(pp. 91–112). Oxford: Elsevier.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical
modelling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4, 273–294.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2002). Everyday knowledge and mathematical modeling
of school word problems. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),
Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Vinner, S. (2007). Mathematics education: Procedures, rituals and man’s search for meaning. The
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 1–10.
VV.AA. (2016). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in mathematical modeling education.
Philadelphia. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.siam.org/reports/gaimme.php
Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Mathematizing verbal descriptions of situations: A language to support
modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 207–264.
Zan, R. (2011). The crucial role of narrative thought in understanding story problems. In
K. Kislenko (Ed.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVI (pp. 287–305).
Tallinn: Estonia.
Zbiek, R., & Conner, A. (2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modelling as a
context for deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Education Studies
in Mathematics, 63, 89–112.
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems
and Its Effects on Students’ Engagement
and Attitude Toward Mathematics

Zakieh Parhizgar and Peter Liljedahl

Abstract In this chapter, the engagement of 244 students is measured across three
different types of mathematical problems (modelling problems, word problems, and
mathematical exercises). We also investigate the potential of teaching modelling
problems in changing students’ attitude towards mathematics. This research was
conducted with a pre-test, followed by an educational intervention and a post-test.
During the educational intervention, two groups of students with different instruc-
tional formats attended six sessions of modelling problem solving. The results of this
study show that, although, there existed no significant difference in engagement
existed between the three types of mathematical problems in the pre-test data, both
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the post-test data showed that students gener-
ally experienced more engagement on word problems. Results also show that teaching
modelling problems improved students’ attitudes towards mathematics in both groups.

Keywords Flow · Engagement · Modelling problems · Word problems ·

Problem solving

Introduction

Kaiser et al. (2011) argue that, because of the application of mathematics in science,
technology, and in our daily lives, students’ ability to apply their mathematical
knowledge to real-world situations has become an important issue in the twenty-
first century. Yet, as English and Sriraman (2010) argue, this application will require

This research has been funded by Iran cognitive sciences and technologies Council since 2013.

Z. Parhizgar (*)
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
e-mail: zakieh.parhizgar@gmail.com
P. Liljedahl
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 235

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_15
236 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

a type of mathematical knowledge that is currently beyond their classroom experi-

ences. As such, it is vital that we, as a field, begin to create opportunities which will
enable students to improve their modelling skills.
It is important for students to have practice in seeing situations in which mathematics might
be helpful and in trying their hand at formulating useful problems, although every situation
will not be formulated into a precise mathematical problem. (Pollak 1970, p. 318)

As a result, curricula all over the world are beginning to embrace mathematical
modelling and the use of real-world problems as a necessary part of mathematics
education. For example, the Iranian national curriculum documents (Research and
Educational Planning Organization 2013) specify that the modelling of real-world
problems and phenomena is considered to be within the territory of, “the teaching and
learning of mathematics” (p. 25) further suggesting that, “the important mode of
mathematics is to enable human beings to accurately describe complex situations and
to predict and control possible natural, economical, and social situations” (p. 25). The
ability to apply mathematics in solving problems in daily life is one of the most
important aims of teaching mathematics. As such, “educational activities must be
based on the mathematics of the environment and it must help students to observe and
analyze mathematical concepts and prepositions in their environment and to obtain
various interpretations for mathematical concepts in their surroundings” (p. 26).
In addition, the incorporation of modelling into a mathematics curriculum can
create the background for better understanding of mathematical concepts (Blum
et al. 2002) as well as student motivation.
. . . the more we can incorporate genuinely real-world problems within the curriculum, the
better our chances of enhancing students’ motivation and competencies in mathematical
problem solving. (English and Sriraman 2010, p. 268)

On the other hand, research shows that a perceived lack of connection to their real
life is disenfranchising for some students, causing them to have negative attitudes
about school mathematics (Alamolhodaei 2009). Generally, beliefs, attitudes and
feelings, often called affect (McLeod 1992), play an important role in developing
creative and critical thinking in mathematics and mathematical modelling can pave
the way for students’ better understanding of mathematical concepts, thus leading to
improvement on mathematical beliefs and developing creative thinking (Blum et al.
2002). Examining the modelling approach and its role in providing an environment
in which students develop appropriate beliefs about, and positive attitude towards,
mathematics is an important concept brought up in the International Congress on
Mathematical Education (Blum et al. 2002). The research presented here investigates
the potentials of teaching modelling problems in improving Iranian grade 10 stu-
dents’ attitude toward mathematics.

Mathematics Attitude

An individual’s attitude toward mathematics may refer to how s/he likes or dislikes
mathematics, or to the extent to which s/he thinks understanding and learning
mathematics are (un)important in their lives (Hannula 2002; Ma and Kishor 1997).
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 237

Research shows that a variety of factors – including teacher’s support, interaction

among students and behavioral and educational expectations from teachers – have
a significant relationship with students’ attitudes and behaviors. Teaching methods
which emphasizes active participation of students (student-centered) are contrary to
traditional lectures in which the teacher provides information and students receive this
information passively (teacher-centered) (Prince 2004). In educational environments
in which teachers play a supportive role, students’ positive feelings and confidence
in their abilities in attaining success are enhanced (Akey 2006). The teachers’
teaching method can, therefore, be an important factor in changing students’ attitude.
Akinsola and Olowojaiye (2008) is a case in point for this kind of research;
adopting two teaching methods, the authors learned that the teaching method
implemented by teacher in the class exerts a strong influence on students’ attitude
towards mathematics. In addition to the teaching method, the pertinence of mathe-
matics subjects to students’ needs is also of great importance, playing a prominent
role in motivating the students to learn mathematics. Attitudes towards mathematics
as a part of the affective domain in mathematics are addressed in some research
regarding the effect of real world problems on students’ mathematics attitude.
Regarding the larger construct of affect and not merely attitude, Hardre (2011)
proved that using various ways of getting students involved in the classroom as
well as deliberately illustrating the uses of mathematics to students can enhance their
efficacy and motivation in solving challenging problems. Adding to this, Bracke and
Geiger (2011) found that incorporating modelling problems into mathematics les-
sons heightened student interest in these type of problems and even caused a change
in attitude in mathematics in general. In the same vein, Eric (2011) investigated
Singaporean sixth-grade students’ attitudes towards solving mathematical modelling
problems in a problem-based learning environment. Their results indicate that the
students’ interest, perseverance, and confidence increased after solving modelling
problems. They concluded that providing students with a PBL environment is a good
way to improve their attitude towards the learning of mathematics.
Schukajlow et al. (2012) investigated the effects of teaching modelling problems
on students’ enjoyment, interest, value and self-efficacy expectations concerning
three types of mathematical problems: intra-mathematical problems, word problems,
and modelling problems. The results of this work showed that teaching a unit on
modelling problems had positive impacts on students’ affect with regard to all three
types of problems.
Taken together, it is expected that by providing activities which have a relation-
ship to the real world, would strengthen the learning process, improve students’
interest and motivation, activate positive emotions, and increase the number of
students who enjoy mathematics. We are interested in testing this idea by looking
closely at student engagement—as a contextualization of these aforementioned
affective variables—while solving mathematical modelling problems and comparing
this with student solving more typical mathematical problems such as word prob-
lems and mathematical exercises. Hence, we have chosen to draw on the theory of
flow (Csíkszentmihályi 1990, 1996, 1998), a theory developed specifically to explain
the phenomenon of deep engagement.
238 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

The Theory of Flow

In the early 1970s Mihály Csíkszentmihályi became interested in studying, what he

referred to as, the optimal experience (1990, 1996, 1998),
. . . a state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the
experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the sheer
sake of doing it. (Csíkszentmihályi 1990, p. 4)

The optimal experience is something with which most people are familiar. Flow is a
period in which one is intensely focused and highly absorbed in an activity, that one
loses track of time, is un-distractible, and is totally consumed by the enjoyment of
the activity. As educators we have glimpses of this in our teaching and value it when
we see it.
In an effort to gain insight into this fleeting phenomenon, Csíkszentmihályi
pursued it within contexts that he believed to be rich in optimal experiences and
among the people working within these contexts – musicians, artists, mathemati-
cians, scientists, and athletes. Emerging out of this work were a set of nine elements
that turned out to have been common within every optimal experience – irrespective
of it occurred for a musician, artist, mathematician, scientist, or athlete
(Csíkszentmihályi 1990):
1. There is a clear goal at every stage of the activity.
2. There exists a mechanism for which feedback on one’s actions are provided.
3. The doers ability is in balance with the challenge of the task.
4. Action and awareness are merged.
5. The doer becomes indistractible.
6. The doer gives themselves to the task with no concern for failure.
7. Self-consciousness disappears.
8. Time becomes distorted.
9. The goal of the activity shifts from getting done to doing the task.
The last six elements on this list are characteristics of the internal experience of the
doer and manifest themselves as increase in focus, enjoyment, situated interest, and
motivation. In contrast, the first three elements on this list are characteristics external
to the doer, existing in the environment of the activity, and crucial to occasioning of
the optimal experience. The doer must be in an environment wherein there are clear
goals, immediate feedback, and there is a balance between the challenge of the
activity and the abilities of the doer.
This balance between challenge and ability is critical to Csíkszentmihályi’s
(1990, 1996, 1998) analysis of the optimal experience and is articulated through
the consequences of being in a state of imbalance. For example, if the challenge of
the activity far exceeds the doer’s ability, they will experience a feeling of anxiety or
frustration (see Fig. 1). Conversely, if the doer’s ability far exceeds the challenge of
the task at hand, they will experience boredom (see Fig. 1). However, when there is a
balance between challenge and skill, a state of flow is created (see Fig. 1) – which is
the essence of optimal experience and the nine aforementioned elements into a single
emotional-cognitive construct.
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 239

Fig. 1 Graphical
representation of the balance
between challenge and skill

Flow is one of the only ways to talk productively about the phenomenon of
engagement. The nine aforementioned elements of flow give us not only a vocab-
ulary for talking about aspects of the subjective personal experience of engagement,
but it also gives us a way to think about the potential environments that occasion
engagement during mathematical activity.

Mathematical Problems

Mathematical problems are often divided into three types: modelling problems, word
problems, and intra-mathematical problems (Niss et al. 2007, p. 12). The distinction
between the three types of problems lies in the degree of their connection to the real
world. In what follows we summarize each of these type of problem along with the
mental activities required for solving each type (Schukajlow et al. 2012).

Modelling Problems

Simply stated, mathematical modelling is the application of mathematics in the

solving of problems from real-life situations which do not have regular structure
(Galbraith and Clatworthy 1990). Figure 2 shows an example of such a problem.
One of the theories that can be used for describing modelling activities is the
modelling cycle proposed by Blum and Leiss (2007). A commonly accepted solution
process for a modelling problem can be characterized by a seven-step sequence of
activities: (1) understanding the problem and constructing an individual “situation
model”; (2) simplifying and structuring the situation model, thus constructing a “real
model”; (3) mathematizing or translating the real model into a mathematical model;
(4) applying mathematical procedures in order to derive a result; (5) interpreting this
mathematical result with regard to the initial real situation, thus attaining a real
result; (6) validating this result with reference to the original situation and, if the
result is unsatisfactory, returning to step 2; and (7) exposing the whole solution
process.
240 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Shot on Goal: You have

become a strategy advisor to
the new football recruits. Their
field of dreams will be the
FOOTBALL FIELD. Your task
is to educate them about the
positions on the field that
maximise their chance of
scoring. This means when they
are taking the ball down the
field, running parallel to the
SIDELINE, where is the
position that allows them to
have the maximum amount of
the goal exposed for their shot
on the goal? Initially you will
assume the player is running on
the wing (that is, close to the
side line) and is not running in
the GOAL-to-GOAL corridor
(that is, running from one goal
mouth to the other). Find the
position for the maximum goal
opening if the run line is a
given distance from the near post
(Galbraith and Stillman 2006;
Stillman 2011).

Fig. 2 Modelling problem: Shot on Goal

It is important to note, however, that despite the linear nature of the aforemen-
tioned seven-step model students’ problem-solving processes are often not so linear.
Rather, they frequently move back and forth between the real and mathematical
aspects of the model (Borromeo Ferri 2007).

Word Problems

Word problems are nothing more than unmasking a purely mathematical problem
which is expressed in terms of the real world (Blum and Niss 1991). Figure 3 shows
an example of a word problem.
The process of solving these problems includes turning the words into mathe-
matical world (Niss et al. 2007). Word problems can be related to the reality,
although in this model mental activities related to reality are simpler in comparison
to modelling problems and that is because the real model has been given in
the problem from the beginning (Borromeo Ferri 2006; Chamberlin 2010;
Schukajlow et al. 2012).
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 241

Air plane take-off: An air plane taking off accelerates for 300 meters
along the runway before taking off at a 45 degree angle to the ground.
When the plane passes over the end of the runway it is already at a
height of 150 meters. How long is the runway? (Bakhshalizade et al.
2013).

Fig. 3 Word problem: Air Plane Take-off

Fig. 4 Intra-mathematical B
problem: AB Length The length of AB: In the Right triangle
ABC, Tan B = √ and BC = √ .
A C Calculate the length of side AB.

Intra-mathematical Problems

The third type of the problems is the ones which does not have any connection to
reality and are introduced using mathematical propositions (see Fig. 4).
To solve these, only the appropriate mathematical procedures and concepts are
needed. Intra-mathematical problems are not problems in the classic sense of
problems. Many researchers would call them exercises. For consistency and paral-
lelism, in this article we are referring to them as intra-mathematical problems.

Research Questions

Taken together, we are interested in examining students’ attitude toward mathemat-

ics and the engagement of students while solving mathematical modelling problems
and compare these to the engagement of students solving, the more common and
more familiar, word problems and intra-mathematical problems. Such questions
have not been adequately addressed (Schukajlow et al. 2012). At the same time,
we know from prior research that a student-centered teaching approach can result in
increased engagement and positive emotions (Gläser-Zikuda et al. 2005; Hänze and
Berger 2007). However, there exists no research on the influence of educational
environment and engagement. In addition to comparing engagement across different
types of problem and investigating mathematics attitude, we are also interested in
examining the role of teaching modelling on engagement and attitude.
Blum (2011) partitions teaching into either teacher-centered or student-centered.
According to Blum (2011), the teacher-centered approach is characterized by:
The teacher writes the problem on the board,
Students express their opinions and comments about the problem,
The teacher asked them to think about the solution,
The teacher brings the class to a common solution through teacher-students
interactions,
The final solution is written on the board.
242 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Meanwhile, the student-centered approach is characterized by (Blum 2011):

The teacher writes the problem on the board,
The students work in groups of three to five students to try to solve the problem,
The teacher monitors the students and tries to guide them by posing appropriate
questions.1
Taken together, this study has been designed and was conducted to answer the
following questions:
Question 1 What are the effects of teaching mathematical modelling problems on
students’ attitude toward mathematics?
Question 2 Are students’ attitude toward mathematics different in teacher-centered
and student-centered lessons?
Question 3 In which type of mathematical problems (modelling, intra-mathematical
and word) do students experience the most engagement?

Method

Because students did not have any previous experience with modelling activities in
their mathematics classes, this research was conducted using a pre-test ! educational
intervention ! post-test design.

Participants

The participants of this study were 244 female students aged 15–16 from three
private high schools in Iran. This study was done in nine grade 10 classes (the
number of students in each class was between 29 and 33) which lasted approxi-
mately 4 months. The necessary sample size was estimated using PASS software,
considering at least 80% power for t-test in pre-test and post-test independent sample
t-test (its nonparametric equivalent, the Wilcoxon test) and a significance level of 5%
based on the result of the Schukajlow et al. (2012) study. Seventy-two students were
in a student-centered classroom during the course of this study, while 172 were in a
teacher-centered classroom. Classes were categorized as ‘student-centered’ or
‘teacher-centered’ by systematic random sampling. This means that the students
were randomly selected based on the estimated number and were divided into two
groups.

1
This is done by using strategic interventions like ‘read the problem again’ or ‘draw a sketch’,
comparing a groups’ solution to solutions from other groups, and having groups exchange ideas
with other groups (Blum 2011).
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 243

The majority of students in the schools in which the data were gathered had high
scores in mathematics. The mean of the scores of classes (the average of students’
scores in each class ranged from 19 to 20 out of 20) were assimilated based on the
students’ mathematics score in their previous year (grade 9).

Intervention

Given the employment of two teaching methods (that is, teacher-centered and
student-centered), students were divided into two groups. Six classes were run
using the teacher-centered approach and three classes were run using the student-
centered approach (Blum 2011) with the same problems being used in both groups.
In the intervention sessions students were exposed to modelling problems about the
Pythagorean Theorem as well as Linear Functions. These lessons were designed
based on aforementioned modelling cycle by Blum and Leiss (2007).
The three students-centered classes were all taught by the lead author as well as
four of the teacher-centered classes. The other two of the teacher-centered classes
were taught by two teachers who normally taught using a teacher-centered approach.
These two teachers were provided with all problems and solutions in a training
session and delivered the lesson and the problems as intended.

Instruments

The study consisted of the results from a pre-test, administered immediately prior to
the aforementioned intervention, and a post-test, administered immediately after the
intervention. The pre-test consisted of four separate sections. The first was a ques-
tionnaire asking about their attitudes towards mathematics designed by Tapia and
Marsh (2004), which is used by many scholars (see for example Afari 2013). The
scale2 is comprised of 40 items, the response to which range from ‘strongly disagree’
to ‘strongly agree’ based on five-point Likert scale (see Appendix A). The remaining
three sections each consisted of mathematics problems relating to each of the three
types of problems (modelling problems, word problems, and intra-mathematical
problems) followed by an engagement questionnaire. The questionnaire about the
students’ attitudes about mathematics.
For the second section students first completed a modelling problem followed by
a modified version of the Flow Perceptions Questionnaire (Egbert 2003) consisting

2
Some items in this scale were:
10. My mind goes blank and I am unable to think clearly when working with mathematics.
25. Mathematics is dull and boring.
40. I believe I am good at solving mathematics problems.
244 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

of 15 items, using a 5 point Likert scale, to measure the participants‘engagement in

solving the different types of problems. This questionnaire also had one written
response question about their feelings that the student could fill out while solving the
modelling problem. This same structure was used in section three and four with the
exception that students were solving word problems and intra-mathematical prob-
lems respectively.
The Flow Perceptions Questionnaire (Cronbach’s α ¼ .82) substantiated by
Egbert (2003) with minor changes was used to examine student engagement. Egbert
originally used this questionnaire to find out whether flow happens in foreign
language classes (Egbert 2003). It has also been used in other studies (Azizi and
Ghonsooly 2015; Mirlohi et al. 2011; Sedig 2007). This questionnaire is based on
Likert format, having a 5-point scale from 5 (very strongly agree) to 1 (very strongly
disagree). An example of one of the items is: This task excited my curiosity.
The questionnaire originally consisted of 14 items. However, one of the items3
when translated to Persian, was not understandable to the students, so it was omitted
from the questionnaire. Hence, the original psychometric properties of the instru-
ment are technically in question (Huck 2012), though removing the item that could
not be translated to Persian was the more preferable option to having an
uninterpretable item. The Flow Perceptions Questionnaire was utilized to measure
the quality of subjective experience such as level of interest, degree of concentration,
enjoyment of the activity, and amount of perceived control of the activity. However,
as there are no items directly related to perceived balance between challenge and
skills, two items related to this quality were added to the questionnaire.4 As
mentioned, an open question5 was also added to the questionnaire, resulting in a
16 item instrument (see Appendix B).
After the intervention, the students again completed a four section test following
the same structure as for the pre-test, but with different problems for the last three
sections. See Table 1 for a summary of the instruments. Moreover, in order to study
the students’ attitude towards modelling problems brought up during educational
sessions, one open-ended question was also put to students along with the first
questionnaire. The question includes: What effect has teaching modelling problems
had on your attitude towards the mathematics course?
The section for modelling problems included only one problem of mathematical
modelling. The sections for word problems and intra-mathematical problems each
contained two problems, one related to Pythagorean Theorem and the other related to
Linear Functions. In what follows, samples of each type of problem are given, all
relating to the Pythagorean Theorem.

3
During this task, I could make decisions about what to study, how to study it, and/or with whom to
study?
4
My mathematical skills were on par with the provided challenges. I believe that my skills enabled
me to overcome the challenges.
5
What were your feelings when you were solving this kind of mathematical problems? Write your
comments about it.
Table 1 Summary of instruments usedall tables are okay.>
Pre-test Intervention Post-test
Mathematics attitude questionnaire Mathematics attitude questionnaire
Modelling problem Word problem Intra-mathematics Modelling problem Word problem Intra-mathematics
section section section section section section
Problem solving test Problem solving Problem solving test Problem solving test Problem solving Problem solving test
test test
Flow questionnaire Flow Flow questionnaire Flow questionnaire Flow Flow questionnaire
questionnaire questionnaire
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . .
245
246 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Data

The data consists of students’ attitude toward mathematics and flow questionnaire
scores from the modelling, word, and intra-mathematical problems. The mean of
these scores were computed for representing descriptive statistics and evaluating
questionnaire by using repeated measures ANOVA through the SPSS Statistics 20
software. The reliability of the pre-test mathematics attitude and flow perception
questionnaires were examined using the Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 2).
In addition to the flow and attitude scores, there were also students’ answers to the
two open questions about their feelings about these three kinds of mathematical
problems and attitude toward mathematics. These were coded through the lenses of
flow (Csíkszentmihályi 1990, 1996, 1998, ) as well as modelling (Blum and Leiss
2007). Although the student solutions for each of the problems were also collected,
they are not being considered for the study presented here.

Result from the Mathematics Attitude Questionnaire

The objective of the first research question was to examine the effect of teaching
modelling problems on students’ attitude towards mathematics. In other words, can
teaching modelling problems in six sessions improve the students’ attitude towards
mathematics? In order to analyze their attitude the Two-Way Repeated Measures
ANOVA was used. The mean of scores of students’ response to the attitude
questionnaire is presented in Table 3.
The results of this analysis indicate that teaching modelling problems had a
positive effect on the students’ attitude towards mathematics F(1, 242) ¼ 22.86,
p < .001. In the same vein, having taught modelling problems to 14–15 year-old
students during a long-term (1 year-long) project, Bracke and Geiger (2011) claim
that familiarity with, and working on, modelling problems improved students’
attitude in mathematics course. The main research question of their project was
whether it was possible to incorporate the real-world modelling tasks into mathe-
matics classes during the academic year. Their results indicated that incorporating
the modelling into the curriculum in the long term would give the students the power
to analyze these problems, thus yielding better results than short term projects.
In regards to the second question, the examination of results of Two-Way
Repeated Measures ANOVA showed that the effect of teaching method on the
students’ attitude is not significant (F(1, 242) ¼ 0.25, P ¼ .617). As is shown in
Table 3, the attitude of students in both groups changed for the better, but the effect
of group was not significant as the modelling problems were new for students in both
groups.
Despite the lack of significance, after the project was completed, the students
explicitly expressed that those problems needed to be solved in groups – something
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 247

Table 2 Reliability of the Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) Pre-test Post-test

flow and mathematics attitude
Mathematics attitude 0.959 0.958
scales
Intra-mathematical problems 0.886 0.893
Word problems 0.880 0.901
Modelling problems 0.918 0.935

Table 3 Students’ (n ¼ 244) Pre-test Post-test

mathematics attitude and
M (SD) M (SD)
engagement from pre-test and
post-test (ANOVA type I test) Mathematics attitude 3.76 (0.62) 3.89 (0.60)
Intra-mathematical problems 3.34 (0.67) 3.42 (0.68)
Word problems 3.40 (0.69) 3.55 (0.68)
Modelling problems 3.28 (0.79) 3.51 (0.80)

that may have increased the impact of the teaching method. This was nicely
summarized by one of the teachers who employed the teacher-centered method in
his/her class.
Students tended to solve the problems in groups; the research methodology, however,
required them to solve the problems individually.

In an effort to gain fuller information on the students’ attitudes, the students were
asked to express the extent to which the teaching and learning of modelling problems
had an effect on their attitudes, after the educational sessions ended.
I am now more interested in mathematics and do not deem it a useless lesson.
The current mathematics material included in the textbook is not interesting enough –
just some mathematics formulas in which we insert values. The hardest task we have is find a
formula related to some equations and solve problems. But when I got familiar with the
modelling problems, I could see how well we were able to solve interesting problems by
learning these formulas. I think this kind of problems help us live more easily and look at
things closely.
I became more interested in mathematics and am more excited about solving problems.
Solving modelling problems has given us a wider perspective on mathematics and the
lesson has become even lovelier than it used to be.
I liked modelling problems a lot and learned that mathematics is of great importance for
our lives. I used to think that mathematics was just used for calculating but now my view has
changed – I know where mathematics can be applied and also study more eagerly in this
field. I also thank you for changing my view toward math.
We have been learning mathematics in the form of some formulas and through memo-
rizing them since the elementary school. Thus, preparation for solving such problems must
have been planned from the elementary school.

These data support the quantitative results of the research and clearly show that
modelling problems have brought about a change in attitude towards the mathemat-
ics course. However, they feel that modelling problems should be solved in collab-
orative environment.
All problems were fascinating and challenging; solving this kind of problems – especially in
groups – causes all members to make their best effort to come up with a solution. I prefer
248 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

solving diverse problems in more interesting subjects to repetitive, rote-learned problems

about a single subject.

Results from the Flow Questionnaire

In order to see if different types of problems generated a change in flow for the
students, a repeated measures ANOVA Type I test was used. Statistical analysis
shows that there is no significant difference in students’ engagement among these
three types of problems (F(2, 486) ¼ 2.9, P ¼ .064). However, when we consider
students’ flow score in pre-test and we compare them among the three types of
mathematical problems, we see that the mean engagement for word problems are the
highest, the intra-mathematical problems are second, and modelling problems are
third (see Table 3).
From Table 3 we see that students did not differentiate between the three types of
problems. That is, there was no significant difference in the flow students experi-
enced across the three problem types. Schukajlow et al. (2012) also reached the same
conclusion in their study. In examining students’ motivation, interest, self-efficacy,
and enjoyment across the same three types of mathematical problems, they found no
significant difference between these variables. In the present study, similar results
were obtained although students first solved the problems and then commented on
them. A possible explanation for these results may be the lack of students’ experi-
ence with modelling problems that led them to underestimate the complexity of the
problem leading to superficial or incorrect answers. When students’ responses
to the open question about their feelings and comments on mathematical problems
were analyzed, the comments clustered into 5, 6 and 7 comment types for intra-
mathematical problems, word problems, and modelling problems respectively (see
Table 4).
From the data in Table 4, it can be seen that word problems were seen as being the
easiest and most applicable of the three problem types. Intra-mathematical problems
were seen as boring. However, because they know how to solve them and feel
relaxed when they face them, they were sometimes seen as interesting. Students’
comments about modelling problems revealed that they found these types of math-
ematical problems applicable and valuable, but their skills did not allow them to face
the challenges and gain more positive feeling about these problems.
In general, the students had the most positive feelings about word problems. This
was unexpected. We hypothesize that since word problems are practical compared to
intra-mathematical problems and are simple in contrast with modelling problems, the
students had more flow during solving word problems.
However, investigating students’ comments on mathematical problems shows
that the students found all kinds of mathematical problems interesting. This is
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 249

Table 4 Students’ comments about mathematical problems in pre-test

Problem type Flow Out of flow Others
Intra-mathe- These problems were These kind of problems For solving this kind of
matical interesting and we are bored me problems, it’s just need to
problems totally familiar with know mathematical
them formulas
I had control over the They are routine mathe-
problem solving matical tasks
process
I had enough skills for
solving them
Word This kind of problems They were not so They are applicable
problems was fun for me difficult
I had enough skills for
solving them
These problems were
interesting
I had control over the
problem solving
process
Modelling They were interesting I do not possess suffi- They were from our daily
problems cient mastery of solving life
them
I could not understand They were thought pro-
the real situation voking and needing crea-
tivity to solve them
Long description of the They were difficult and
real situation made me challenging
feel anxiety and irritated

consistent with the statistical analysis above. It is difficult to explain this result, but it
might be related to the fact that not all students answered the open question about
their feelings.
We examined the third research question again after training sessions of model-
ling problems. The results of the test shows that there is a significant difference in
students’ flow score among the three types of mathematical problems (F
(2, 486) ¼ 3.61, P ¼ 0.030). Students could not differentiate these three types of
mathematical problems before the intervention, but after it they experienced more
flow while solving word problems. Table 3 shows the mean of students’ flow
experiences in post-test. After word problems, students experienced more flow in
modelling and intra-mathematical problems respectively.
From the analysis of students’ responses to the open item in the post-test
questionnaire, it was clearly observed that students still have the most positive
feelings about word problems (all the comment types were repeated). As mentioned
250 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

before, however, unlike the comments after the pre-test, after the intervention
students now also made some positive expressions about the modelling problems.

Conclusion

This research attempted to assess students’ attitude towards mathematics before and
after teaching modelling problems. The findings indicate that using educational
sessions to get the students acquainted with modelling problems had positive effects
on their attitude towards mathematics. The positive effect is in step with Bracke and
Geiger (2011).
Two educational forms (teacher-centered and student-centered) in teaching
modelling problems are compared in the present study. Analyzing the data collected
here supports that student-centered approach has a more useful effect on the stu-
dents’ attitude. The student comments on group work in modelling problems
indicate that cooperative learning environments can provide a better background in
which to evoke students’ positive feelings. Previous research on student-centered
environment (e.g., Schukajlow et al. 2012) has also especially emphasized the role of
such environments. Although attitude toward mathematics is resistant to change, it
can be improved using cooperative learning methods (Townsend and Wilton 2003).
The other main goal of the current study was to determine for which kind of
mathematical problems students experience the most engagement. Taken together,
the quantitative and qualitative results suggest that modelling tasks were no more
engaging to students than intra-mathematical and word problems. We conclude that
students found both intra-mathematical and modelling problems to be less engaging
than word problems – but for very different reasons. Intra-mathematical problems
were too easy and boring while modelling problems were too hard and frustrating. A
possible explanation might be that the modelling problems were not developmen-
tally appropriate and using them with greater frequency might enable educators to
alter the difficulty or wording of the problems to reach a delicate balance between
challenge and developmental appropriateness. On the other hand, the students found
word problems to be simultaneously challenging and approachable due to their
comfort and familiarity with them. These results can be summarized by
placing the various problems on Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990, 1996, 1998) flow dia-
gram (see Fig. 5).
Motivation plays an important role in learning. Flow is a kind of intrinsic
motivation which is described as a desirable experience in which the person really
enjoys doing the task. The aim of this theory is to create conditions under which
students are highly involved in their educational activities. As such, it is a student-
centred theory (Whitson and Consoli 2009). In order to create the background for
flow in students, we need to be aware of the teaching conditions in the classroom and
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 251

Fig. 5 The modified flow diagram

more helpful problems for students. The evidence from this study suggests that word
and mathematical modelling problems connected to the reality can be rich sources
for creating engagement in students and improving their view towards mathematics.
However, students should be sufficiently taught how to solve real-world problems,
especially how to do cycle modelling in order to be able to engage in the problem
solving process and gain necessary skills to overcome the challenges.
Most participants were talented students who had high scores in their lessons
especially in mathematics. Examining how talented students of mathematics acted in
the modelling class, Hee Kim and Kim (2010) concluded that mathematical model-
ling is an appropriate curriculum to achieve the objectives specific to the talented
students. According to this study, the objective of curriculum for talented students in
South Korea is to nurture the capacity to creative thinking and expanding self-
directed learning; for them, talented students are those who possess exceptional
abilities in solving mathematical problems and are committed to doing their tasks.
A limitation of the study is therefore that most participants were students with
high average and more motivated to study than average school students. It is
therefore necessary to conduct the research on students with a different cultural
and educational background. Additionally, the age level appropriateness of the
modelling tasks may have been a limitation. More research would be needed in
order to determine if this was, in fact, an issue. Finally, the study was limited by the
fact that the problems were situated within only two mathematical concepts – linear
functions and the Pythagorean theorem. A different set of contexts may have
produced different results.
252 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Appendices

Appendix A

A selection of items from the Mathematics Attitude Questionnaire with high load-
ings on the attitude component. Participants responded to each of the following
items on a scale from A (strongly disagree) to E (strongly agree).
6. Mathematics is one of the most important subjects for people to study
11. Studying mathematic makes me feel nervous
14. When I hear the word mathematics, I have a feeling of dislike
21. I feel a sense of insecurity when attempting mathematics
24. I have usually enjoyed studying mathematics in school
31. Mathematics is a very interesting subject
36. I believe studying mathematics helps me with problem solving in other areas
39. A strong mathematics background could help me in my professional life

Appendix B

Participants responded to each of the following items on a scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions 3, 4, 11, and 12 were reverse-scored.
1. This task excited my curiosity.
2. This task was interesting in itself.
3. I felt that I had no control over what was happening during this task.
4. When doing this task I was aware of distractions.
5. This task made me curious.
6. This task was fun for me.
7. I would do this task again.
8. This task allowed me to control what I was doing.
9. When doing this task, I was totally absorbed in what I was doing.
10. I believe that my skills enabled me to overcome the challenges.
11. This task bored me.
12. When doing this task I thought about other things.
Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 253

13. This task aroused my imagination.

14. I would do this task even if it were not required.
15. My mathematical skills were in par with the provided challenges.
16. What were your feelings when you were solving this kind of mathematical
problems? Write your comments about it. (open ended question) Note; you can
answer this question with the help of questions above.

Appendix C (Figs. 6 and 7)

Giant's shoes: In a sports center on the Philippines, Florentino

Anonuevo Jr. polishes a pair of shoes. They are, according to the
Guinness Book of Records, the world's biggest, with a width of
2.37 m and a length of 5.29 m. Approximately how tall would a
giant be for these shoes to fit? Explain your solution (Blum,
2011).

Fig. 6 Modelling problem: Giant Shoes (topic linear function)

254 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Cunning Running: In the Annual "KING OF THE COLLEGE"

Orienteering event, competitor are asked to choose a course that
will allow them to run the shortest possible distance, while
visiting a prescribed number of checkpoint stations. In one stage
of the race, the runners enter the top gate of a field, and leave by
the bottom gate. During the race across the field, they must go to
one of the stations on the bottom fence. Runners claim a station by
reaching there first. They remove the ribbon on the station to say
it has been used, and other runners need to go elsewhere. There
are 18 stations along the fence line at 10 meter intervals, the
station closest to Corner A is 50 meters from Corner A, and the
distances of the gates from the fence with the stations are marked
on the map.

Investigate the changes in the total path length travelled as a

runner goes from gate 1 to gate 2 after visiting one of the
checkpoint stations. To which station would the runner travel, if
they wished to travel the shortest path length? For the station on
the base line closest to Corner A, calculate the total path length for
the runner going Gate 1 – Station 1 – Gate 2. Use Lists in your
calculator to find the total distance across the field as 18 runners
in the event go to one of the stations, and draw a graph that shows
how the total distance run changes as you travel to the different
stations. Observe the graph, then answer these questions. Where is
the station that has the shortest run total distance? Could a 19th
station be entered into the base line to achieve a smaller total run
distance? Where would the position of the 19th station be?

If you were the sixth runner to reach Gate 1, to which station

would you probably need to travel? What is the algebraic equation
that represents the graph pattern? Draw the graph of this equation
on your plot of the points. If you could put in a 19th station where
would you put it, and why? (Additional suggestions were
provided as to how the work might be set out, and for intermediate
calculations that provide some task scaffolding (Galbraith &
Stillman, 2006).

Fig. 7 Modelling problem: Cunning Runner (topic Pythagorean Theorem)

Chapter 10: Teaching Modelling Problems and Its Effects on. . . 255

References

Afari, E. (2013). Examining the factorial validity of the attitudes towards mathematics inventory
(ATMI) in the United Arab Emirates: Confirmatory factor analysis. International Review of
Contemporary Learning Research, 2(1), 15–29.
Akey, T. (2006). School context, students’ attitudes and behavior and academic achievement: An
exploratory analysis. New York: MDRC.
Akinsola, M. K., & Olowojaiye, F. B. (2008). Teacher instructional methods and student attitudes
towards mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 60–73.
Alamolhodaei, H. (2009). Mathematics education principles. Mashhad: Jahane Farad publication.
Azizi, Z., & Ghonsooly, B. (2015). Exploring flow theory in toefl texts: Expository and argumen-
tative genre. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 210–215.
Bakhshalizade, S., Brojerdian, N., Dehghani, Z., Didehvar, F., Taheri, M., Alamian, V., &
Mesgarani H. (2013). Mathematics 1. Tehran: The general bureau for textbook printing and
distribution. Ministry of Education.
Blum, W. (2011). Can modelling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In
G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning
mathematical modelling (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.
Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling
problems? The example “Sugarloaf” and the DISUM Project. In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith,
W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12) – Education, engineering and
economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.
Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, application, and
links to other subjects-state, trends, and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.
Blum, W., et al. (2002). ICMI Study 14: Application and modelling in mathematics education –
Discussion document. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(1–2), 149–171.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 86–95.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2007). Individual modelling routes of pupils-analysis of modelling problems in
mathematical lessons from a cognitive perspective. In C. Heines (Ed.), Mathematical modelling
(ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 260–270). Chichester: Horwood
Publishing.
Bracke, M., & Geiger, A. (2011). Real-world modelling in regular lessons: A long-term experiment.
In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 529–550). New York: Springer.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life (REP
ed.). Basic Books.
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 87(4), 499–518.
English, L. D., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In B. Sriraman & L. D.
English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (Advances in Math-
ematics Education, Series) (pp. 263–285). New York: Springer.
Eric, C. C. M. (2011). Primary 6 students’ attitudes towards mathematical problem-solving in a
problem-based learning setting. The Mathematics Educator, 13(1), 15–31.
Galbraith, P., & Clatworthy, N. (1990). Beyond standard models-meeting the challenge of model-
ling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 137–163.
Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying blockages during transitions in
the modelling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 143–162.
256 Z. Parhizgar and P. Liljedahl

Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’
emotions and achievement – Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE approach.
Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.
Hannula, M. S. (2002). Attitude towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 25–46.
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student charac-
teristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th
grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29–41.
Hardré, P. L. (2011). Motivation for mathematics in rural schools: Student and teacher perspectives.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 213–233.
Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Borromeo Ferri, R., & Stillman, G. (Eds.). (2011). Trends in teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14. New York: Springer.
Kim, H. K., & Kim, S. (2010). The effects of mathematical modelling on creative production ability
and self-directed learning attitude. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 09–120.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics:
A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 89–120.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). New York: Macmillan.
Mirlohi, M., Egbert, J., & Ghonsooly, B. (2011). Flow in translation exploring optimal experience
for translation trainees. Targets, 23(2), 251–271.
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. 1–32). New York: Springer.
Pollak, H. O. (1970). Applications of mathematics. In E. G. Begle (Ed.), The sixty-ninth yearbook of
the national society for the study of education (pp. 311–334). Chicago: The National Society for
the Study of Education.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Research and Educational Planning Organization. (2013). Secretariat of designing and producing
the curriculum of Islamic Republic of Iran (in Persian).
Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching
methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-
efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237.
Sedig, K. (2007). Toward operationalization of ‘flow’ in mathematics learnware. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23(4), 2064–2092.
Stillman, G. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and model-
ling tasks at secondary school. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.),
Trends in teaching and learning mathematical modelling (pp. 165–180). New York: Springer.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E., II. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16–21.
Townsend, M., & Wilton, K. (2003). Evaluating change in attitude towards mathematics using the
“then-now” procedure in a cooperative learning programme. The British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(4), 473–487.
Whitson, C., & Consoli, J. (2009). Flow theory and student engagement. Journal of Cross-
Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 40–49.
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical
Modeling Assessment: A Case Study
on Engineering Students’ Experience
of Challenge and Flow During
a Compulsory Mathematical Modeling Task

Thomas Gjesteland and Pauline Vos

Abstract This chapter describes a study on engineering students’ affect while

working on the Tracker Project Task, a group assessment task that asks students
(1) to use digital tools (the camera in their smart phones and free tracker software) to
capture the movement of an object, (2) to mathematically model that movement, and
(3) to create a poster reporting on the video analysis of the movement.
We applied an activity-based conceptualization of affect in mathematics (“do you
like this activity?”), which differs from a subject-based conceptualization of affect
(“do you like mathematics?”). A subject-based conceptualization has two draw-
backs: (1) it does not distinguish among different aspects of mathematics, and (2) it
draws in students’ bias and beliefs from earlier, often bad experiences of poor
mathematics teaching. We found an activity-based operationalization of affect by
using the concepts of challenge and flow. Flow is a state of absorption, in which
people forget about time and experience feelings of happiness.
We assessed n ¼ 346 students through the Tracker Project Task. To study affect,
we developed an instrument of 10 items (Likert-type) to measure students’ experi-
ence of challenge and flow. We administered the survey through a web-based
platform yielding a high response rate (n ¼ 239, 69%) and good reliability
(Cronbach’s Alpha: 0,795). The results revealed that three out of five students
experienced challenge and flow, which expresses students’ positive affect regarding
a mathematical assessment activity. This can be ascribed to, on the one hand, the
activity and the instrument not clearly being related to mathematics, and thus not
being tainted by students’ earlier negative experiences with mathematics. On the
other hand the Tracker Project Task had characteristics that can bring about flow:
being open, offering ample time to submit the product, being accessible to all
students (low floor), but also enabling the better students to challenge themselves
further (high ceiling). Such characteristics may be better feasible within mathemat-
ical modeling assessment than canonical mathematics assessment.

T. Gjesteland (*) · P. Vos

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
e-mail: thomas.gjesteland@uia.no

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 257

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_16
258 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

Keywords Activity-based (conceptualization of affect) · Flow · Affect (and

mathematical modelling assessment) · Project-based task · Tracker software

Introduction

Introduction to Affect, Mathematics Education and Modeling

Tasks

A recently published book (Pepin and Roesken-Winter 2015) brings together recent
research in the field of mathematics education and affect. In this book, the authors
describe affect, values, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and so forth, which they con-
ceptualize in terms of complex, dynamic systems and participatory environments.
However, while distinguishing between many aspects of affect, they hardly differ-
entiate between aspects of mathematics education, whether this is instruction,
curriculum or assessment methods. When taking mathematics in such a holistic
way, students are asked to give their agreement or disagreement to items such as
“mathematics is my favorite subject”, “I enjoy pondering over mathematics tasks” or
“in mathematics there is always a reason for everything”. There is no room for how
students experience separate phenomena in mathematics education, some of which
maybe positive and some maybe negative, some temporary and some more lasting.
There is evidence that teachers want the best for their students, but nevertheless
knowingly offer inadequate instruction due to time pressure, examination demands,
discipline problems, lack of confidence, and so forth (e.g. Nolan 2012). These
limitations can hardly yield positive effects on students’ affect, as repetitive calcu-
lation exercises cause boredom, time-restricted tests cause stress, the distance
between the teacher’s and the students’ discourses cause alienation, or the seemingly
irrelevance and meaninglessness of algebraic expressions cause demotivation. Ask-
ing students holistically for their agreement or disagreement on a statement such as
“mathematics is my favorite subject” gives little room for nuances and contexts. A
student partly agreeing with this item might rather have said: “mathematics with this
particular teacher is my favorite subject, but last year it was the opposite” or
“mathematics is my favorite subject when we solve problems that I can relate to in
my daily life”. Or the students partly agreeing with the statement “in mathematics
there is always a reason for everything” might rather have expressed personal
reasons: “in mathematics (classes) there is always a reason (for doing it), which is
to get a pass”. So, when researchers of affect in mathematics education understand
beliefs as “relatively stable, reified mental constructs” (Pepin and Roesken-Winter
2015, p. 4), the stability of these beliefs can well be related to the stable practices in
mathematics classrooms with meaningless tasks, alienating symbols, stressful tests
and, often, a friendly teacher, of which few students envy the job.
To the general public, mathematics has a bad press, being the only subject
linguistically associated to negative affect by the terms math anxienty (Tobias
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 259

1978) and mathofobia (Hodges 1983). Paulos (1988) observed that incompetence
with numbers is socially acceptable and many people have little shame saying “I
always hated math”. Also, Brown et al. (2008) report of students saying that they
would rather die than take mathematics. From our own experiences with mathemat-
ics education as student, parent, teacher, teacher trainer, researcher and colleague,
we have observed that, indeed, many students experience moments of boredom,
apathy, stress, alienation or demotivation in mathematics education. This means, in
the first place, that there are good reasons for the poor image of mathematics in
society and the stable beliefs of students. Second, it means that there is much room
for improvement, whether it be in its instruction, curriculum, or assessment methods,
all having consequences for students’ experiences, their curiosity, their creativity,
their self-esteem, their beliefs, and of course not in the least, their knowing and
understanding of mathematical concepts and their competencies to use mathematics
flexibly for solving non-mathematical problems. Third, it means that even when
changing educational practices robustly, this will not immediately or deeply change
students’ affect towards mathematics at large. The weight of a social perception
about mathematics as being hard, meaningless and only for nerds, cannot easily be
countered by carefully coordinated reform practices.
The subject of mathematics, being an institutionalized school subject with an
elitist tradition of more than 2000 years, cannot easily be changed. However, it is
possible to make small steps that break away from canonical mathematics education
and design mathematical tasks, that many students experience as pleasant and
meaningful challenges, even if these are part of institutionalized assessment. An
important presumption for this is that mathematics does not necessarily need to be
the context for mathematical activities. There are many non-mathematical areas, in
which one needs mathematics to solve problems. One such area is physics, where the
use of mathematical models is pertinent to describe phenomena. The study described
in this chapter has an inter-disciplinary setting at the cross-road of physics and
mathematics, whereby kinematics (the physics of movement) is the context for an
assessment task, which requires a significant amount of mathematics. The task asks
students to make a translation from the real world in which objects move into the
mathematical world of graphs and formula. This translation is known as mathema-
tization (Blum and Leiss 2005; Niss 2010). The task additionally asks students to
reflect on the mathematization (e.g. precision, relation to laws of gravity). The task
does not start from a real-world problem that needs to be solved, and students don’t
make all mathematical modeling steps from the modeling cycle (Blum and Leiss
2005; Niss 2010). Nevertheless, we perceive the task as a modeling task, as
mathematization is an essential activity within mathematical modeling.
Another presumption is, that there exist a variety of task formats that challenge
not only the typically gifted students, but also the more average student. Sullivan
et al. (2011) and Sullivan and Mornane (2014) describe challenging tasks as
requiring students to:
• Plan their approach, especially sequencing more than one step;
260 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

• Process multiple pieces of information, with an expectation that they make

connections between those pieces, and see concepts in new ways;
• Choose their own strategies, goals, and level of accessing the task;
• Spend time on the task and record their thinking;
• Explain their strategies and justify their thinking to the teacher and other students.
The study described in this chapter centers on a task format that fits this description.
It is called project: a task which cannot be completed within a limited time frame,
which has a clear, but not straight-forward goal, and there is variety in the
approaches to tackle it (Blomhøj and Kjeldsen 2006; Kaiser et al. 2011). However,
unlike in other studies, in our case the task was an assessment task with a formal
evaluation (pass or fail).
Within the context of this situated project task requiring mathematizing, we
studied students’ affect. To avoid the research being contaminated by students’
preconceptions of mathematics, we undertook this study without the use of the
word mathematics in the instruments that measured students’ affect. To use the
term mathematics could interfere with students’ earlier experiences of canonical
mathematics education and their biases about mathematics as an institutionalized
subject could interfere with their evaluation of their engagement with the task. The
students in our study were from the engineering department; according to Harris
et al. (2015) many of these students are disappointed by the mathematical demands
in the 1st year of their studies and some would not have chosen the engineering
direction if they had known about these demands. Not many of them have a positive
stance towards mathematics, seeing it as a hurdle to get further in their studies. Only
later on in their studies, they start to perceive the usefulness of mathematics for their
future professional lives. Thus, we expected the participants in our study not to have
very positive ideas about mathematics.

Introduction to the Research Setting

At the Faculty of Engineering and Science of University of Agder (Norway), we deal

with large student numbers (>300). Such numbers are a worldwide phenomenon as
more and more students gain access to higher education. A few years ago, the large
number of students made the faculty decide to abandon the laboratory training in the
1st-year Physics courses, because the laboratory facilities and its staff could no
longer harbor the students. However, this policy only solved infrastructural prob-
lems on the short term. Abandoning lab training could lead to future problems when
the graduates from our faculty have become engineers, managers, researchers, and so
forth. In their future professional lives, our students will need skills to measure and
model phenomena from the real world so they can describe and analyze these, and
eventually, make predictions. For their proper training, it is insufficient to offer
large-scale lectures, instructional videos or tutoring sessions to train for written
examinations. They also need training in relating measurements to theoretical
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 261

models. They need skills to practically handle instruments, calibrate these, measure
as precisely as possible, work with error margins, and so forth. Therefore, we wanted
to develop a task, in which lab training was combined with relating measurements to
mathematical models, and the preferably outside of laboratory facilities. If such a
task would be feasible with large student numbers, then laboratory training can be
less dependent of university campuses, and even be feasible in less affluent regions,
or within distance education.
A second reason to develop a new task was to improve students’ motivation. The
students in our engineering courses are no different from those described in Harris
et al. (2015), who found that many 1st-year engineering students have a negative
stance towards mathematics. Thus, we wanted a task, in which mathematics would
serve engineering aims, for example by being related to technology and moving
objects.
We were inspired by Domínguez et al. (2015), who carried out research at a
university in Mexico. They asked their students in an interdisciplinary mathematics/
physics course: a child is throwing a candy to another. Make a mathematical model
of this movement. With such an open-ended, inquiry-based modeling task, students
need to consider the what, how, and why themselves. Research in science education
has demonstrated the advantages of such inquiry-based tasks over traditional lectures
or teacher demonstrations (De Jong et al. 2013; Minner et al. 2010).
We adapted this open-ended, inquire-based, kinematical modeling task from
Dominguez et al. (2015) and added the use of smart phones for filming. Many
students now have smart phones that contain cameras with the quality to film motion
sufficiently precise for video analysis. To use equipment from students’ extra-
institutional, daily lives gave students more ownership over the task. Additionally,
we added the use of free software that can capture the motion from videos. This
software is based on pattern recognition through contrasts and is known as tracker
software. Such democratic availability of digital equipment, both smart phone
cameras and free software, opens new possibilities for inquiry-based laboratory
training for which expensive laboratories are no longer needed.

The Task

With support from the faculty administration, we gave the students an obligatory,
inquiry-based laboratory task, which they had to fulfill to get access to the written
examination.
The task asked students to select a movement of an object; they could choose
whatever: throwing a ball, jumping their skate board, driving a car. They had to film
this movement with their phones. Thereafter, they had to use free tracker software
(http://physlets.org/tracker/) on their laptops to transform the movement into mea-
surements, approximate the movement with a mathematical model, and then present
their findings on a poster. The poster had to contain an introduction, observations
(measurements), a mathematical model of the moving object’s trajectory, and a
262 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

discussion of the accuracy of the model in comparison to the measurements. The task
had to be completed within the first 2 weeks of the course and to be done in groups of
two or three. Collaboration was convenient, because one student alone cannot easily
create and film a movement simultaneously. The delivered posters were assessed on
their quality (pass or fail), whereby students had to obtain a pass to get access to the
written Physics examinations at the end of the course. In our communication with the
students, we indicated the task by the name “Tracker Task”. We limited the word
mathematics, and used it only in sentences such as “you must find a mathematical
model that describes the position of the object as a function of time”.
It was our first time to implement such an open, practical task. Therefore, we did
not want to focus on students’ learning effects in the first place. We considered it a
pilot study with the aim to find out whether such an obligatory assessment was
feasible with large numbers, without expensive laboratory equipment, and with
students who have little experience with open-ended tasks. We felt that we – as
lecturers and researchers – should first take the opportunity to learn and see whether
the task activated students in a positive way, to the extent that the obligation and the
assessment weren’t the instigators, but that the task in itself activated the students.
Our research question was: to what extent does an open assessment task about video
analysis of motion with smart phones and free tracker software challenge and
activate the students?

An Activity-Based Conceptualization of Affect

If one wants to study affect in mathematics education, there are many conceptual-
izations and instruments, but most of these address mathematics holistically. Instead,
we wanted to study students’ affect when they engage in an activity, which is
different from standard activities of canonical mathematics education. Thus, we
sought an activity-based, and not a subject-based conceptualization.
Looking at mathematics from an activity-based perspective goes back to, among
others, Freudenthal (1973). He distinguished between mathematics as (1) a well-
organized deductive system, or as (2) a human activity which consists of organizing
mathematical patterns when solving problems. The two perspectives are also known
as “mathematics as a noun” and “mathematics as a verb”. The first perspective
relates to mathematics as a holistic academic discipline, with its own symbols, and
its procedures for establishing truth (by creating proofs), and so forth. The second
perspective relates to mathematical activities, such as solving non-routine problems
and using mathematics to solve problems within non-mathematical contexts, for
example within kinematics. Within the first perspective, humans and their activities
are less visible than within the second.
An activity-based conceptualization of mathematics also aligns with a socio-
cultural perspective. One of its advocates, Lerman (2000), describes mathematics
as a socio-cultural practice embedded within a community. If embedded within a
school institution, mathematics is a practice embedded in a community of a teacher
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 263

and a group of students. The activities consist, among others, of explanations by the
teacher, and work on tasks by the students. This practice differs markedly from
mathematics as a practice embedded within a research community, whereby the
actors work on problems to which nobody knows an answer. Describing mathemat-
ics socio-culturally as a practice embedded within a community entails focusing on
the activities undertaken by the actors, which are mediated by language, tools, and so
forth. Using an activity-based conceptualization of mathematics enables us to
(1) relate affect to activities and not to mathematics as a holistic entity, and
(2) distinguish between different kind of activities within different contexts of
mathematics education (doing repetitive exercises or an inquiry-based project).
To study students’ affect while they engaged in an activity, one can still focus on
different aspects, such as their emotions, their perception of the relevance or
meaningfulness of a task, their boredom, their apathy, and so forth. We decided to
focus on their perception of being challenged and activated by the activities.
According to the Cambridge dictionary a challenge is: “(the situation of being
faced with) something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done
successfully and therefore tests a person’s ability” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/challenge). Thus, in itself, a challenge is not necessarily activat-
ing, for example, because it is perceived as ‘too challenging’. However, a challenge
can be related to activation through the use of the concept of flow, which is “a state in
which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the
experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the
sheer sake of doing it” (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990, p. 4). Flow is typically an activity-
based concept. Further on in this paragraph, we will explain how this concept links
challenge and activation to affect. However, we first present more background
information on the concept of flow.
Flow is a term connected to the Hungarian psychologist Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, a researcher in the area of positive psychology, an area of psy-
chology that studies causes for human’s happiness. In an overview of their studies,
Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988) describe how they observed artists,
rock climbers, gamers and scientific researchers during their challenge, and how
these people got fully absorbed in their activities and forgot about time, about basic
needs such as eating and resting, or about simple responsibilities such as collecting
the kids from kindergarten. However, once the activity came to an end and a product
was finished (the paint was dry, so to speak), the observed people completely lost
interest in the product. This implied that the process was considered more important
than the end product. The state of this process was initially described as an autotelic
experience, that is: as having a purpose in itself. Later, the autotelic experience was
coined as flow, and nowadays it is also described as being in the zone.
Csikszentmihalyi and his group at the University of Chicago studied many
different groups, amongst which also adolescents. They observed that of all the
places students hang out, the school is the one place they least wish to be were
extended to other target groups (Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter 2003;
Csikszentmihalyi and McCormack 1986). When they were in school, the classroom
was the place they most strongly wished to avoid. They rather were in the cafeteria,
264 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

the library, or the hallways. Interestingly, in secondary education, these researchers

discovered that the people most likely to experience flow were teachers. According
to the findings, teachers can experience flow if they have a sense of competency in
their own work and a supportive work environment.
Flow has also been studied in mathematics education (a.o. Armstrong 2008;
Drakes 2012; Liljedahl 2006). However, the typical situation of most students in
canonical mathematics classes is not to experience flow at all.
Important aspects for flow to occur are: clear goals, during the activity one often
gets feedback on the progress made, and one has a feeling of being in control. During
the experience of flow, a person loses awareness of the self, of the larger environ-
ment, and loses awareness of time. Then, the activity is intrinsically rewarding
irrespective of the outcome, or as Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988,
p. 33) write: “the mountaineer does not climb in order to reach the top of the
mountain, but tries to reach the summit in order to climb”.
According to Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988), a precondition for
experiencing flow is that a person should perceive that he/she is capable of doing it,
that is: that one has sufficient skills for the activity, but that this activity is not
perceived as easy. At this point, we see that skills bring challenge and flow together:
a certain tension between skills and challenge brings dynamics into the activity,
which can result in the actor experiencing flow. Flow forces people to stretch
themselves in an activity, and improve on their abilities. However, if the skills are
becoming better, and the activity does not become more challenging, the person will
become bored. On the other hand, if the skills cannot meet the challenge, the person
will become discouraged, alienated or, in the worst case, anxious. Thus, in relation to
affect, flow is a technical term in the fields of intrinsic motivation and interest,
describing “an optimal state of experience” (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi
1988, p. 3). Flow is an activity-based concept (without activity, there cannot be an
experience of flow), and it can only occur if there is a certain tension between
challenge and skills.
It remains important to note, that flow is an experience of a person, and that not all
activities result in flow because of the above described tensions between skills and
challenge. A task designer, thus, needs to consider this tension: if a task is too easy,
the more gifted students will be bored, and if the task is too hard, the less talented
students will not be able to start. Therefore, in our research we used a task with a low
entry level to understanding the overall aims. In fact, being a group task, it was
accessible to all students, irrespective of their initial skills. However, being accessi-
ble did not imply it was an easy task. As the task was open-ended and allowed for a
variety of approaches, it invited the more gifted students to challenge themselves.
This task characteristic is also known as low floor – high ceiling. Because of this type
of task, we ignored the aspect of skills, and operationalized students’ affect in terms
of students’ experience of challenge and flow.
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 265

Methods

In the Spring of 2017 we presented the task described on pages 262–263 to the
students of the engineering department (Mechatronics, Electrical Engineering,
Renewable Energy, Data Engineering, ICT, and others), as part of the 1st-year
physics course. There were 346 students for whom the task was obligatory.
The research design for studying students’ challenge and flow was a survey,
whereby data were collected through a digital questionnaire (described below)
within the university’s Virtual Learning System. Participation in the survey was
voluntary and encouraged with prizes of NOK 500 (approx $60) for three randomly
drawn participants. We removed irregular participation (e.g. participants who chose
constantly a 3 as answer; 2nd-year students for whom the task wasn’t obligatory) and
remained with n ¼ 239 students. The response rate of 69% can be considered high
for a web-based survey (Bryman 2015).
We developed the instrument, because a literature review did not yield any
existing instrument that matched with the aims of our study. Reasons for discarding
them were: too long questionnaires, or unsuitability to our Tracker Task. Therefore,
we adapted items from instruments from earlier research and developed these in
alignment with our needs. The items asked for (dis-)agreement to statements on a
5-point Likert scale. Ten items were designed to measure students’ perception of
Challenge and Flow, see Table 1. It should be noted that the word mathematics does
not appear in the instrument.
While developing the items, we asked a few colleagues to review the items, and
we organized a small pilot with a few 2nd-year students. The questionnaire
contained six further questions about students’ collaboration and the ease to use
the equipment or to find the mathematical formula. Those items were included to
inform us about practical and technical issues, of which the results are irrelevant to
the study presented here.

Table 1 The ten flow and challenge items in the questionnaire, with Cronbach’s Alpha ¼ 0.795
Cronbach‘s Alpha if item
Statements deleted
q1 The “Modeling with Tracker Task” made me curious 0.765
q2 (Inv.) This Tracker Task took too much of my time 0.801
q6 Making a poster made me feel like a ‘real scientist’ 0.785
q7 Time was flying when we worked in this task 0.768
q8 (Inv.) This task is more suitable for Secondary Schools 0.775
q9 This task helped me to better understand the theory 0.768
q11 (Inv.) I was easily distracted when we worked on this task 0.771
q13 During this task I started thinking about other movements 0.794
(what if. . .?)
q14 I would do this task even if it wasn’t obligatory 0.778
q16 I would like to have more of such practical tasks 0.771
266 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

In our research, we make a difference between challenge and flow as concepts

(described in the previous paragraph), and the measurement scale of Challenge and
Flow (with capital letters). The concepts of challenge and flow are subjective
experiences of a person, and therefore these cannot be measured. However, we
assume that they can be approximated by a score, which results from answering to
the ten Challenge and Flow items from our questionnaire. A participant’s score on
the Challenge and Flow items then is indicator of the extent to which he/she had
positively experienced being challenged and/or activated.
The score on the scale is calculated by adding the scores on the ten questions. As
the score on one item ranges from 1 to 5, the score on the Challenge and Flow scale
ranges from 10 to 50. To increase reliability, three items were inversely posed, and
the scoring on these items was inverted, too. As measure of consistency between
items (internal reliability), we calculated Cronbach ‘s Alpha for the ten items. If
lower than 0.6, the consistency of a group of items is considered poor and unac-
ceptable (Bryman 2015). It turned out that the ten items of the Challenge and Flow
scale together had a good reliability, with Cronbach Alpha being 0.8. Additionally,
we tested whether the consistency would improve if one of the ten items were
deleted (it would mean that the item is inconsistent with the others). This analysis
showed that nine items contributed positively to the scale and deleting them would
lower the consistency. Only one item (“(Inv.) This Tracker Task took too much of
my time”) did not show this, but deleting it would not significantly increase the
consistency either, see Table 1.

Results

As lecturers, we observed informally how enthusiastic students were everywhere on

campus, throwing apples or golf balls, and even a cat was thrown (and fell on its
feet). Students analyzed the flight of their skateboard, the turning of cars in the
parking garages and the fall of a small parachute. Also, in the working groups where
students come to practice examination tasks, we heard them discuss lively about the
Tracker Task. We had offered office hours in case the students wanted clarification
on the task, but not one student appeared. After 2 weeks we received more than
100 posters in our Virtual Learning System, of which we show two samples in Fig. 1
to give the reader an impression of students’ products. The format of the poster asked
students to write an Introduction, give their Observation, give a Model, and write a
Discussion. The poster on the left in Fig. 1 was made by students who threw a table
tennis ball and mathematized its trajectory with a quadratic equation. On the right,
students filmed the bouncing of a rubber ball and used MatLab to mathematize a
sequence of parabolas, of which the height and width reduces with each bounce.
In this chapter we don’t analyze the cognitive performance of the students in this
assessment, such as their understanding of modeling, the depth of their analysis, the
discussion of their measurements in relation to kinematical laws of gravitation, and
so forth. Instead, we focus on students’ affect, which we operationalized in terms of
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 267

Fig. 1 Two examples of products by the students

268 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

Table 2 Mean scores on challenge and flow questions (n ¼ 239)

Statements Mean (sd.)
q1 The “Modeling with Tracker Task” made me curious 3.61 (0.75)
q2 (Inv.) This Tracker Task took too much of my time 3.67 (0.88)
q6 Making a poster made me feel like a ‘real scientist’ 3.96 (1.03)
q7 Time was flying when we worked in this task 3.40 (0.92)
q8 (Inv.) This task is more suitable for Secondary Schools 2.58 (0.95)
q9 This task helped me to better understand the theory 3.39 (0.88)
q11 (Inv.) I was easily distracted when we worked on this task 3.55 (0.91)
q13 During this task I started thinking about other movements (what if. . .?) 3.31 (1.12)
q14 I would do this task even if it wasn’t obligatory 2.60 (1.13)
q16 I would like to have more of such practical tasks 3.70 (1.02)

25

20

15

10

0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Fig. 2 Frequencies of challenge and flow scores (middle score 30 in red)

challenge and flow and which we measured through the questionnaire. Table 2
shows the mean scores on each item (1 ¼ low, 3 ¼ middle, 5 ¼ high).
The mean score on five of the ten items is higher than 3.5, being well on the
positive affect side. This indicates that a majority of the students experienced
challenge and flow to quite an extent. They largely agreed that the task made them
curious (item 1), did not take too much of their time (item 2), or that they would like
to have more of these tasks (item 16). The remaining five items obtained a score in
the middle range (between 2.5 and 3.5). Not one item was answered below 2.5.
When adding the students’ scores on the ten items, we obtain their total score on
the scale Challenge and Flow. On this scale, the minimal score is 10 (not attained by
any student), the middle score is 30 and the maximal score is 50 (not attained by any
student). Figure 2 shows a histogram of the frequencies of the Challenge and Flow
scores, with the bar for the middle score 30 in red.
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 269

The histogram shows that the scores on the Challenge and Flow survey are
skewed to the right, which means that students’ scores are, on average, on the high
side of the scale. Out of 239 students, 54 students (22.6%) scored 28 points or lower,
42 students (17.6%) scored in the middle range of 29–31 points, and 143 students
(59.8%) scored 32 points or higher. If we take 32 as a threshold score, it would mean
that approximately three out of five students experienced a certain positive challenge
and flow. Of course, the threshold is arbitrary; if we rather take 33 as a threshold
score, then 129 students (54.0%) experienced challenge and flow.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our research question was: to what extent does an open assessment task about video
analysis of motion with smart phones and free tracker software challenge and
activate the students? Based on the results from the survey, we find that a clear
majority of the students (59%) experienced challenge and flow. They indicate that
they forgot about time and wanted more of such activities. This result is anecdotally
supported by our observations of buzzing students on campus, their discussions
during workgroup sessions, and the high response rate to the survey. We searched
the literature, but didn’t find earlier research in assessment of mathematics in which
students expressed to want more of such assessment tasks.
The data from the survey do not allow us to compare students’ appreciation of the
Tracker Task to experiences of challenge and flow on other activities in the course
(attending lectures, working on textbook problems). However, our 1st year engi-
neering students aren’t in any way different from those described in Harris et al.
(2015), avoiding additional mathematical tasks and seeking to minimize mathemat-
ical activities. In light of that, the high score on item q16 (“I would like to have more
of such practical tasks”) can be interpreted as a comparison, whereby students
express to favor the Tracker Task over other mathematics tasks.
The results can be ascribed to a number of components. In the first place, we
asked the student about an activity for which they could use their own smart phones.
Thus, they had the laboratory equipment in their pockets. Being students from the
engineering department, it could be expected that they liked using technological
devices. These gave them ownership over the activity, and it made the activity
different from prior experiences in mathematics education. Also, we were careful
not to connect the activity to mathematics. In the questionnaire the word mathemat-
ics was not used once, and in the task the word mathematics was only used once
when asking the students to create a mathematical formula. We did this, so the
students would evaluate the activity in itself and not connect it to earlier, often
negative experiences in mathematics classes. Harris et al. (2015) have clearly
established that students in engineering, like the ones in our study, generally
perceive mathematics not as their favorite.
In the second place, the results can be explained in light of the task characteristics.
Although the students were assessed on their product (the poster), the task was open,
270 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

the students had ample time to submit the product, and the task was accessible to all
students (low floor), yet enabling the better students to challenge themselves further
(high ceiling). Such task characteristics may be better feasible within mathematical
modeling education than canonical mathematics education. Also, the assessment
being for groups may have added to students’ positive affect: unlike the large
lectures that the students attended, the small groups offered them companions,
informality and possibly even safety.
We would like to highlight that we used an activity-based conceptualization for
both mathematics and affect. Thus, we did not study affect in relation to mathematics
holistically, but in relation to a certain mathematical activity. Central in the activity
was the mathematization of the trajectory of a moving object, that is: the creation of a
mathematical formula describing position of a moving object as a function of time,
and additionally discussing to what extent that formula deviated from the actual
measurements. We anticipated that students had not often been given such a task, in
particular not in assessment. This newness enabled us to detach the task from
mathematics education at large, which is dominated by explaining teachers and
students practicing exercises (Nolan 2012).
Also, we did not study affect holistically, but studied affect through an activity-
based perspective. We studied whether the students were challenged and activated
by a task, to the extent that they possibly got fully absorbed into the activity. In that
case, the task was motivating in itself. For an activity-based conceptualization of
challenge, we were able to build on Sullivan et al. (2011) and Sullivan and Mornane
(2014). For an activity-based conceptualization of activation, we used the concept of
flow, which is a state of happiness caused by an activity that is sufficiently chal-
lenging in relation to someone’s skills. In our research we contend that flow is an
important aspect of affect, and recommend more research into students’ experiences
of flow in mathematics classrooms.
The concept of flow brings a new perspective on affect, not only being activity-
based, but also carrying the possibility that flow can be experienced by students in
mathematics classrooms, and even in assessment. How often do students experience
flow in canonical mathematics classrooms, if at all? With the existence of math
anxienty (Tobias 1978) and mathofobia (Hodges 1983), we contend that in many
mathematics classrooms many students will hardly ever experience flow. However,
our study demonstrates that mathematical activities can result in flow among a large
group of students, even if these students are 1st year engineering students who, as
reported by Harris et al. (2015), are not extremely good in mathematics.
Of course, we do not know how the students’ responses would have been, if we
had repeatedly included the word mathematics into the task or into the questionnaire.
However, in general with modeling tasks, or in particular with a task to mathematize
motion in the real-world, such tasks don’t look like the tasks from canonical
mathematics education. Nevertheless, such tasks make students engage in mathe-
matical activities. Thus, it remains a question whether affect research in mathematics
education is tainted by the term mathematics, the looks of repetitive tasks in
canonical mathematics education, and the lack of challenging tasks that intrinsically
motivate students so they experience flow.
Chapter 11: Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study. . . 271

In our study, we made 1st-year engineering students engage in mathematical

activities, that made many of them experience challenge and flow. This was
expressed by the high Challenge and Flow score, or expressed by the 3.7 score on
item q16 (“I would like to have more of such practical tasks”). Therefore, we
recommend mathematics education to include more open, easily accessible and
inquiry-based tasks, in particular modeling tasks, and also we recommend more
affect research into students’ experiences of challenge and flow, and into the lack
thereof.

References

Armstrong, A. C. (2008). The fragility of group flow: The experiences of two small groups in a
middle school mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(2), 101–115.
Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2006). Teaching mathematical modeling through project work.
ZDM, 38(2), 163–177.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005). “Filling up” – the problem of independence-preserving teacher
interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the
4th European Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 1623–1633). Gerona: FUNDEMI IQS –
Universitat Ramon Llull.
Brown, M., Brown, P., & Bibby, T. (2008). “I would rather die”: Reasons given by 16-year-olds for
not continuing their study of mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 3–8.
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience
sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 185–199.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & McCormack, J. (1986). The influence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 67
(6), 415–419.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and
engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.
Domínguez, A., de la Garza, J., & Zavala, G. (2015). Models and modelling in an integrated physics
and mathematics course. In Mathematical modelling in education research and practice
(pp. 513–522). Cham: Springer.
Drakes, C. I. (2012). Mathematical modelling: From novice to expert. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reid.
Harris, D., Black, L., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Pepin, B., Williams, J., & the TransMaths Team.
(2015). Mathematics and its value for engineering students: What are the implications for
teaching? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46
(3), 321–336.
Hodges, H. L. (1983). Learning styles: Rx for mathophobia. The Arithmetic Teacher, 30(7), 17–20.
Kaiser, G., Schwarz, B., & Buchholtz, N. (2011). Authentic modelling problems in mathematics
education. In Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 591–601).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport: Greenwood Pub-
lishing Group.
272 T. Gjesteland and P. Vos

Liljedahl, P. (2006). Learning elementary number theory through a chain of discovery: Preservice
teachers’ encounters with pentominoes. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in
mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 141–172). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and
does it matter? Results from a research synthesis 1984 – 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
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.
Nolan, K. (2012). Dispositions in the field: Viewing mathematics teacher education through the lens
of Bourdieu’s social field theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 201–215.
Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Hill &
Wang.
Pepin, B., & Roesken-Winter, B. (2015). From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics
education. Zürich, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-06808-4
Sullivan, P., & Mornane, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ use of, and students’ reactions to,
challenging mathematics tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 193.
Sullivan, P., Cheeseman, J., Michels, D., Mornane, A., Clarke, D., Roche, A., et al. (2011).
Challenging mathematics tasks: What they are and how to use them. In L. Bragg (Ed.), Maths
is multi-dimensional (pp. 33–46). Melbourne: Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling

Minnie Liu and Peter Liljedahl

Abstract In this chapter we look at student engagement while doing a modelling

task. We present the case of two grade 8 students (age 12–13) and look at their
modelling behavior through the double lenses of flow and modelling. During their
modelling process, these students experienced an imbalance between the challenges
and skills presented to them. Results show that the rebalancing of the challenges and
skills were facilitated by the teacher, the students, and the naturally evolving
complexities of the task.

Keywords Flow · Engagement · Modelling · Extra-mathematical knowledge ·

Tolerance · Perseverance

The grade 8 mathematics classroom was noisy and charged with energy, as grade 8 class-
rooms are apt to be. But this was a different kind of noise – a different kind of energy. Instead
of the usual teenage banter heard among students of this age, the noise was a din of
discussion, arguments, calculations, discussion about calculations, and punctuations of out-
bursts of emotions. “Argh! This is not working!”, a girl complained as she leaned over to
chat with a friend working in another group. Across the classroom, a boy shouted with joy,
“We got it!”, and high-fived his group mates. Immediately, three students ran from one end
of the classroom to see what they had done and then dashing quickly back to their groups
with a sliver of an idea. In the middle of all this the bell rang, but not much changed. The
students kept working, occasionally sharing ideas and celebrations with other groups until
they were satisfied that they had cracked the problem. Only then did they submit their work
and shuffle off to their lockers and then to lunch.

Scenes like this are a rare occurrence in any classroom, and even more rare in a high
school mathematics classroom. What could be motivating this behavior, this energy,
this engagement? Maybe it was a test – a type of group problem solving test – a
whole class problem solving test – worth a lot of marks – with very complex
questions. What else could explain the intra-group work, the inter-group work, the

M. Liu (*) · P. Liljedahl

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
e-mail: minnie.liu.van@outlook.com; liljedahl@sfu.ca

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 273

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_17
274 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

running around, the overt celebrations, and the willingness to stay well into their
lunch break?
But this was not a test. There were no marks involved. There wasn’t even a
requirement to finish. It was just a class of students working in groups to solve a
modelling task – a particular type of modelling task. But there was energy. And there
was engagement. And there was commitment – to finish, to produce an answer with
which the group was satisfied. Not the right answer, but a reasonable answer.
In this chapter we will look more closely at a case such as the one described above
and unpack it through the double lenses of engagement and modelling behavior.
Along the way we will introduce a unique type of modelling task that seems effective
in invoking the type of frenzy described above.

Engagement, the Optimal Experience, and Flow

Within the field of mathematics education one of the few ways to discuss engage-
ment through a theoretical lens is through Mihály Csíkszentmihályi’s (1975, 1990,
1996, 1998) notion of an optimal experience –
a state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the
experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the sheer
sake of doing it. (Csíkszentmihályi 1990, p. 4)

In the anecdote above, the students being described were having an optimal
experience. They were so focused on and absorbed in the task they were working
on that they lost track of time. Their focus was so great that they did not hear the bell
– they were un-distractible.
Csíkszentmihályi, in his pursuit to understand the optimal experience, studied this
phenomenon across a wide and diverse set of contexts (1975, 1990, 1996, 1998). In
particular, he looked at the phenomenon among musicians, artists, mathematicians,
scientists, and athletes. Out of this research emerged a set of elements common to
every such experience (Csíkszentmihályi 1990):
1. There are clear goals every step of the way
2. There is immediate feedback to one’s actions
3. There is a balance between challenges and skills
4. Action and awareness are merged
5. Distractions are excluded from consciousness
6. There is no worry of failure
7. Self-consciousness disappears
8. The sense of time becomes distorted
9. The activity was autotelic – a reward unto itself
The last six elements on this list are characteristics of how the doer experiences
the phenomenon of an optimal experience. In the anecdote above the students would
claim that they had lost track of time, that they did not hear the bell, that they were
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 275

Fig. 1 Graphical
representation of the balance
between challenge and
skill (Liljedahl 2018, p. 507)

not worried about failure and that they were not doing the task because it was for
marks. In contrast, the first three elements on this list can be seen as characteristics
external to the doer, existing in the environment of the activity, and crucial to
occasioning the optimal experience. The doer must be in an environment wherein
there are clear goals, immediate feedback, and there is a balance between the
challenge of the activity and the abilities of the doer.
This balance between challenge and ability is central to Csíkszentmihályi’s
(1975, 1990, 1996, 1998) early work on the optimal experience and can best be
understood when looking at imbalances between challenge and ability. For example,
if the challenge of the activity far exceeds a person’s ability they are likely to
experience a feeling of anxiety or frustration. Conversely, if their ability far exceeds
the challenge offered by the activity they are apt to become bored. When there is a
balance in this system a state of, what Csíkszentmihályi refers to as, flow is created
(see Fig. 1). Flow is, in brief, the term Csíkszentmihályi used to encapsulate the
essence of optimal experience and the nine aforementioned elements into a single
emotional-cognitive construct.

Flow in the Mathematics Classroom

Thinking about flow as existing in that balance between skill and challenge, as
represented in Fig. 1, obfuscates the fact that this is not a static relationship (Liljedahl
2018). Flow is not the range of fixed ability-challenge pairings wherein the differ-
ence between skill and challenge are within some acceptable range. Flow is, in fact, a
dynamic process. As students engage in an activity their skills will, invariably,
improve. In order for these students to stay in flow the challenge of the task must
similarly increase (see Fig. 2).
In a mathematics classroom, these timely increases of challenge often fall to the
teacher. But this is not without obstacles. For example, if a student’s skill increases
either too quickly or too covertly for the teacher to notice, Csíkszentmihályi’s theory
of flow predicts that student may slip into a state of boredom (see Fig. 3). Likewise,
276 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 2 Graphical
representation of the balance
between challenge and skill
as a dynamic
process (Liljedahl 2018,
p. 508)

Fig. 3 Too fast an increase

in skill (Liljedahl 2018,
p. 508)

Fig. 4 Too great an

increase in
challenge (Liljedahl 2018,
p. 508)

when the teacher does increase the challenge and if that increase is too great flow
predicts that the student may become frustrated (see Fig. 4). Csíkszentmihályi (1975,
1990, 1996, 1998) predicts that if either of these states occur that a student is apt to
quit.
However, Liljedahl (2018) found that, even in cases of extreme imbalance,
students did not always quit. Looking more closely at such cases, Liljedahl (2018)
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 277

Fig. 5 Modified
representation of the balance
between challenge and
skill (Liljedahl 2018, p. 522)

Fig. 6 Reaction to too great

an ability (Liljedahl 2018,
p. 522)

showed that the boundaries between flow and boredom and flow and frustration
actually contained within them two previously unknown intermediary states –
tolerance for the mundane and perseverance (see Fig. 5). While the first of these
states accounts for cases where students worked at repetitive tasks without getting
bored and without quitting, the second accounts for situations where students
worked on a task where the challenge far outpaced their abilities without getting
frustrated and quitting.
Liljedahl (2018) further found that, in some cases, these states acted as buffers
between flow and quitting by delaying the transition to boredom or frustration long
enough for the imbalance between ability and challenge to be rebalanced. In the case
of tolerance, this rebalancing was the result of an increase in complexity (see Fig. 6)
while in the case of perseverance, rebalancing could happen as a result of either a
decrease in challenge or an increase in ability (see Fig. 7).
278 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 7 Reaction to too great

a challenge (Liljedahl 2018,
p. 522)

Modelling, Modelling Tasks, and the Modelling Cycle

Csíkszentmihályi (1975, 1990, 1996, 1998) and Liljedahl (2018) found flow across a
wide variety of activities, classroom contexts, and mathematical problems. Common
to all of these activities, contexts, and problems was the characteristic of evolving
complexity. That is, as students’ abilities improved there had to be a commensurate
increase in the challenge of the task at hand. In this chapter we look at flow within the
context of modelling tasks.

Modelling Tasks

Modelling tasks are messy problem solving questions that are situated in reality.
Barbosa (2006) describes modelling tasks as problematic activities that, although not
purely mathematical, require modellers to investigate the situation “with reference to
reality via mathematics” (p. 294), and relate what happens in reality to mathematics
by applying their mathematical knowledge and skills to determine a possible solu-
tion to the problem. As such, modellers need to combine their knowledge of
mathematics with their knowledge from outside of mathematics (such as their
lived-experiences) to produce a realistic and meaningful solution.
Modelling tasks can be classified based on a variety of classification schemes
(Maaβ 2010):
1. Modelling activity, where tasks may focus on the entire or a part of the modelling
process and can promote modellers’ understanding of the steps taken to solve a
modelling task;
2. Data, where tasks require modellers to investigate and critically decide the
information relevant to solve the task, and/or to acquire the missing information
required to solve the task;
3. Nature of relationship to reality, where tasks range from fantasies to genuine
context only;
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 279

4. Situations, where tasks are classified based on their relationship between the
modeller’s life and the context of the task. This may range from personal (closest
to a modeller’s life), to educational/occupational, public, and scientific (furthest
away from a modeller’s life);
5. Type of model used, including descriptive models, which describe the situation as
close to reality as possible; and normative models, which only describe certain
aspects of reality while ignoring other aspects;
6. Type of representation, where tasks are presented as text; pictures; text and
pictures; printed materials; and situations;
7. Openness, where tasks are classified based on the final product produced by
modellers;
8. Cognitive demand, which include tasks that focus on extra-mathematical model-
ling, inner-mathematical working, “Grundvorstellungen” (mental objects that
help with the transitions between reality and the world of mathematics), dealing
with texts containing mathematics, mathematical reasoning, and dealing with
mathematical representations;
9. And mathematical content, where tasks are classified based on their mathematical
demands and their audience.

Modelling Cycles

The process to solve modelling tasks can be referred to as a modelling cycle.

Modelling cycles describe general modelling behaviors and can be illustrated
through the use of various diagrammatic representations (Blum and Leiβ 2005;
Borromeo Ferri 2006; Kaiser 2005; Mason and Davis 1991; Pollak 1979). These
diagrams “illustrate key stages in an iterative process that commences with a real
world problem and ends with the report of a successful solution, or a decision to
revisit the model to achieve a better outcome” (Galbraith 2012, p. 8). For the purpose
of this study, we use Borromeo Ferri’s modelling cycle as a unit of analysis.
Borromeo Ferri (2006, 2010) describes the modelling cycle from a cognitive
perspective, and focuses on modellers’ individual thinking processes, where these
processes are made explicit through modellers’ actions during their modelling
processes (see Fig. 8). Borromeo Ferri’s (2006) modelling cycle begins with a
scenario situated within reality. As modellers interpret the real situation, they build
a “visual, verbal, auditive, or formal” (Borromeo Ferri 2010, p.104) mental repre-
sentation of the situation (MRS). MRS highlights the mental process modellers go
through to understand the task, which happens on an implicit level, and is dependent
on the modeller’s thinking style and experiences (Borromeo Ferri 2010).
In the formation of a MRS, modellers may make connections with and simplify
the original situation and discuss with each other the approach of the problem.
Therefore, a MRS is a representation of modellers’ thinking process, a demonstra-
tion of modellers’ understanding and interpretation of the situation, and an illustra-
tion of the direction in which modellers take to solve the problem. After modellers
280 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 8 Representation of Borromeo Ferri’s (2006, p.92) modelling cycle

create a MRS, they make further assumptions of the situation and draw on their
lived-experiences to create a real model to represent the situation. Borromeo Ferri
(2006) refers to these lived-experiences as extra-mathematical knowledge (EMK).
EMK includes any knowledge or experiences that originate from outside of a
modellers’ mathematical experiences. EMK may have little or no clear connections
to mathematics, but plays an essential role in the modelling process, as it enables
modellers to consider the problem situation from a real world perspective, and
allows them to produce a reasonable real model and mathematical model to represent
the situation (Blum and Borromeo Ferri 2009; Borromeo Ferri 2006). In the process
of building a real model, modellers make decisions on their assumptions about and
their approach to the problem situation. A real model may use some mathematics to
represent the situation, but also contains the original context. It is strongly connected
to the MRS and “contains essential features of the original situation, but is on the
other hand already so schematized that (if at all possible) it allows for an approach
with mathematical means” (Blum and Niss 1991, p.38).
Next, modellers mathematize the real model into a mathematical one. The process
of mathematization can be described as “the transition from real model to mathe-
matical model . . . [where] extra-mathematical knowledge (depends on the task) is
strongly demanded by the individuals and used to build a mathematical model”
(Borromeo Ferri 2006, p.92). Modellers then use the mathematical model along with
their mathematical skills to produce mathematical results, apply their EMK once
again to interpret these results in terms of the context of the problem and then
validate these results by comparing them to the original situation. If modellers decide
the real solutions are acceptable, this concludes their modelling cycle. If not,
modellers re-enter the modelling cycle and make adjustments and modifications to
their work.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 281

Research Questions

Whereas the modelling cycle can give insights into students’ modelling behavior, the
theory of flow give insights into student engagement. The question is, can these
theories help explain the frenzied and energetic display of student engagement
described in the opening paragraph of this chapter? More specifically, can Borromeo
Ferri’s (2006) modelling cycle and Liljedahl’s (2018) modified theory of flow be
used in symphony to understand the phenomenon of student engagement while
working on a modelling task?

Methodology

In order to answer this question we conducted a study in which we looked at student

engagement while working on modelling tasks. In what follows we describe the
setting of this research as well as the methods used to capture and analyze the data.

Setting

Data for the research presented here were collected in a Mathematics 8 (age 12–13)
classroom in a high school in western Canada. Within this jurisdiction mathematics
is a required program of study until grade 11. With few exceptions, Mathematics
8 and Mathematics 9 are considered part of the common stream in that all students,
irrespective of ability, take the same course and sit in the same classrooms. In grade
10 students may choose to stay in the common stream or shunt themselves into the
Workplace and Apprenticeship stream if they do not see themselves as continuing
onto post-secondary education or are aiming to enter into a trades program. In grade
11 the common stream splits again into a Pre-Calculus stream and a Foundations
stream. Although both of these streams are eligible for admission into academic
post-secondary programs, only the pre-calculus stream is eligible for entrance into
the sciences.
The class in which the research was conducted was an exception to this common
stream in that it belonged to an enriched and accelerated program for students who
are motivated and eager to learn and who have been recommended by their grade
7 teacher. The program covers the regular Mathematics 8, 9, and 10 curricula in
2 years as opposed to 3. This allows the students to finish the pre-calculus stream by
the end of grade 11 and frees them up to take additional elective mathematics and
science courses in grade 12.
282 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 9 The design a new DESIGNING A NEW SCHOOL

school task
Your city is getting a new 11000 m2 middle school. It is
going to be built on a lot (200 m x 130 m) just outside of
town. Besides the school, there will also be an all-weather
soccer field (100m x 75m), two tennis courts (each 15m x
27.5m), and a 30 car parking lot on the grounds. The
following requirements must be met:

all fields, courts,

buildings, and
parking lots must
be no closer than
12.5m to any of the
property lines.

any leftover property will be used as green space – grass,

trees,shrubs.

good use of green space is an important part of making the

school grounds attractive.

To help you with your design and layout you have been
provided with a scaled map of the property (every square is
10m x 10m). Present your final design on a copy of this
map. Label all structures and shade the green space.

Task

The task that the students worked on comes from a genre of tasks called Numeracy
Tasks. These tasks have been designed specifically to meet the numeracy goals of the
local curriculum and are crafted around “an aggregate of skills, knowledge, beliefs,
dispositions, habits of mind, communication abilities, and problem solving skills that
people need in order to engage effectively in quantitative situations arising in life and
work” (Steen 2001).
The particular task that the students were asked to work on is called the Design a
New School task (see Fig. 9). Although this can broadly be considered a planning
task (Liljedahl 2010) it is, more specifically, a spatial planning task.
Although not requiring the use of advanced mathematics, the Design a New
School task contains characteristics from the aforementioned classification schemes.
It can be described as an open and realistic modelling task that focuses on the
modelling activity. It is also cognitively demanding in the sense that it contains an
extra-mathematical modelling focus which requires modellers to acquire and apply
extra-mathematical knowledge to generate a reasonable solution.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 283

Data and Analysis

Data for the research presented here were collected in the first author’s grade
8 (n ¼ 28) class while students worked on the aforementioned task. Although it is
not possible to know if the grade 8’s had seen similar tasks in their previous years,
this was one of the first of such tasks this group had been given in their grade
8 school year.
Students were randomly assigned to groups of 2–4 and worked on the task during
a 75 min class. There were no instructions provided other than what can be seen in
Fig. 9. While the students worked the teacher (first author) circulated naturally
through the room and engaged in conversations with the students – sometimes
prompted by her and sometimes prompted by the students.
These conversations were audio recorded and transcribed. At the same time
photographs of student work were taken and students’ finished work was collected.
These, coupled with field notes summarizing the interactions as well as observed
student activity, allowed us to build cases for each group of students. Each of these
cases is a narrative of their modelling experience punctuated by significant moments
of activity and emotive expression. These cases constitute the data.
Given that natural and unscripted nature of the teacher's movement through the
room, not all of the cases are equally well documented. Regardless, each of these
cases were analyzed separately through the lenses of modelling and flow. More
specifically, the cases were analyzed using Borromeo Ferri’s (2006) modelling cycle
as well as through Liljedahl’s (2018) modified theory of flow. The results of these
disparate analyses were then combined and compared on an event by event basis to
see if there were relationships between student engagement and various aspects of
their modelling activities intersected.
In what follows we present one of the more complete and comprehensive of the
aforementioned cases – the case of Amy and Angela. This is followed by the
modelling cycle analysis, the flow analysis, and finally the joint modelling-flow
analysis.

Results and Discussion

Amy and Angela reacted to the modelling task by first asking questions about the
parking lot. Amy believed that one of the key factors of the parking lot is the
dimensions of a vehicle, and suggested to go outside to the staff parking lot to
take some measurements.
Amy: How big is a car [talks to herself]? Can I go outside for a second [asks teacher]?
284 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 10 Representation of
Amy and Angela’s work to
identify the usable space
(red)

Fig. 11 Representation of
Amy and Angela’s work
with the soccer field (green)

When she came back, Amy discussed these measurements with Angela, and
suggested that they should increase these measurements to accommodate for large
vehicles.
Amy: The car I measured was 2.5 metres by 1.5 metres, but it was a slightly smaller car
so probably make it a bit bigger? ‘Cause there are bigger cars in the parking lot?
Angela: Like a Chevy.
Amy: What’s that?
Angela: It’s a truck.

After this conversation, Amy and Angela decided to put the parking lot on hold and
investigated the possible locations and orientation of some of the building structures
on the grid. First, they re-read the instructions provided, and paid attention to the
areas on the grid which they were allowed to put buildings and the actual length each
square represents. They divided 12.5 (distance between the border and all buildings)
by 10 (each square represents 10m) and got “one and one-fourth”, and outlined a
rectangle one and a quarter squares inside the border of the grid to represent the
space they could put the buildings (see Fig. 10 for details).
Angela: So, all fields, courts, buildings, and parking lots must be no closer than 12.5
metres to any of the property lines. So one and one-fourth.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 285

Fig. 12 Representation of
Amy and Angela’s work to
include the tennis courts
(purple)

Amy and Angela then used the measurements given in the instruction to work on
the soccer field. They divided the length and width of the soccer field and those of the
tennis courts by 10, and drew a rectangle that is 10 by 7.5 squares to represent the
soccer field (see Fig. 11). They then realized they could not fit the tennis courts
beside the short edge of the soccer field, and rotated the soccer field 90 to allow the
tennis courts (two rectangles that are 2.75 by 1.5 squares long) to fit beside the soccer
field (see Fig. 12).
Amy: Now it’s just the tennis fields.
Angela: Aw. Man.
Amy: We can flip it.
Teacher: Ah, like, rotate it. So rotate this sideways, instead of placing it lengthwise. So
you can fit the tennis courts . . .
Amy: . . . beside it.

After drawing four rectangles to represent the usable space, the soccer field, and
two tennis courts on the grid, the girls went back to the instructions and read the
information given on the parking lot. They drew a quick sketch of a few parking
spots and tried to visualize what the parking lot might look like based on their
drawing. However, they had difficulties visualizing the parking lot and the things
they needed to consider other than the areas taken up by parked vehicles. A brief
discussion with the teacher (first author) led Amy and Angela to realize that there
was more to consider than just the area each parked vehicle takes up.
Amy: The car space. . . 4 by 2. Because, there are bigger cars.
Teacher: But that’s the size of a car?
Amy: That’s the car I measured.1
Teacher: Okay. So that’s the size of a car. But once I parked the car. . .
Amy: You can’t get out.
Teacher: Uhuh. I need to get out. So. . . would I need. . . what does that mean?
Angela: You need some extra space!
Teacher: You need some extra space! So, how much is that extra space?
Amy: Like. . . 0.5 meters?

1
The vehicle Amy measured was 1.5m by 2.5m. She has already increased the dimension to
accommodate for vehicles larger than the one she measured.
286 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 13 Representation of
Amy and Angela’s work to
include the parking lot
(blue)

Angela: A car can’t fit!

Amy: Like, 0.5 meters between each car.
Angela: Oh okay.
Amy: You need to be able to go behind a car
Teacher: You need to go behind the cars and to. . .
Amy/Angela: Drive
Teacher: Drive into the lot.
Amy/Angela: Oh!

In this conversation, Amy pointed out that cars in parking lots do not park right next
to each other. Rather, there is a gap between each car which allows drivers and
passengers to enter and to exit their vehicles. Other than a gap between the vehicles,
Amy and Angela also pointed out the parking lot needs a driveway for the vehicles to
drive into and out of the parking spaces. After further discussion with each other, the
girls created an outline of the parking lot. It is rectangular in shape, 60m long, and
5m wide. All 30 parking spaces are lined up along the long edge of the parking lot,
and each parking space is 2m wide and 4m long. The driveway, which runs along the
long edge of the parking lot, is 1m wide and 60m long. It is a single direction
driveway, where drivers enter the parking lot through an entrance on one end of the
parking lot and leave the parking lot using the exit on the opposite end. They did not
specify how they arrived at a 1m wide driveway. They divided these measurements
by 10, and drew a rectangle that is 6 squares by 0.5 squares on the grid (see Fig. 13).
Afterwards, Amy and Angela moved on to the final requirement, the school
building. Based on the instructions, the girls first decided that the length of the
school building was 110m and the width was 100m to accommodate for an area of
11,000m2. Similar to what they previously did, Amy and Angela divided 110m by
10 and 100m by 10 and determined that they could represent the school building on
the grid using a rectangle that is 11 squares long and 10 squares wide. Very soon,
they were stuck. Amy and Angela could not fit a 11  10 rectangle on the grid. They
then recognized that each square is 100m2 and 11,000m2 means 110 squares, and
looked for 110 squares on the grid for the school building. They were stuck again.
Angela complained that she couldn’t fit the school building on the grid because there
was not enough space to do so. Amy described Angela’s frustration as a “mental
breakdown”, and called the teacher over for help. During their discussion with the
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 287

teacher, Amy had an “AHA!” moment (Liljedahl 2005) and realized that she could
“stack” the school building because in reality, it is possible to have buildings taller
than one floor.
Teacher: What’s wrong?
Amy: [Angela] is having a mental breakdown.
Teacher: Yea. . . looks that way. Why is that?
Angela: I can’t fit it in?
Teacher: Okay. Explain to me what you mean by you can’t fit it in.
Angela: I have no more space left!
Teacher: You have no more space left to fit what?
Angela: Um. . . the rest of the school.
Teacher: The rest of the school. So, tell me, tell me what you have so far. So on the left,
you have your soccer field, okay, and next to your soccer field you have your
two tennis courts
Angela: I can’t fit it in.
Teacher: Oh you can’t fit it in? Is the school big enough? The school is big enough.
Okay. . .
Angela: No.
Teacher: The school is not big enough and you don’t have any more space. Oh my. . . Oh
no. . . Oh no. . . so we need more space.
Angela: But, if we squish it in, it would be ugly.
Teacher: So don’t squish it in.
Angela: But there is no space!
Teacher: Oh there is always space.
Amy: Stack them!
Teacher: What do you mean stack them?
Amy: Two floors!

Amy’s “AHA!” moment (Liljedahl 2005) happened about 30 min into their model-
ling process. While they realized that they could have a school building that is taller
than one floor, they have not quite grasped what the building might look like and
how much space they wanted for each floor. As they recognized the possibility to
build a multi-floored school building, they also joked about creating a “110 floors”
building, to which the teacher took the opportunity to discuss with them building
shapes and floor area.
Angela: Oh! Can we do those lab rooms thingy? . . . Oh windows! [and draws an “S”
shape school] . . . Oh Oh Oh, how about this [points at Amy’s representation of
the school building]?
Amy: There. It’s a circle! [draws 2 rectangles, one inside another]
Angela: Can we do 3 floors?
Teacher: Yea you can do 3 floors. [Our school] has 3 floors. The basement the main floor
and our floor.
Amy: [Our neighbor school] has four though.
Angela: Oh, you know what, in New York, my school has 5 floors, I eat breakfast at
school, on the fifth floor. [laughs]
288 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

As Amy and Angela discussed the shape of the school building and the number of
floors they wanted, they also explored the idea of having a two floor tennis court
building, and the idea of in-cooperating the two tennis courts into the school building
by putting them on the roof of the school building.
Angela: Wait so tennis court can be two floors.
Teacher: Um, you can, but I don’t know if that’s cool, though.
Angela: On the roof, the tennis courts!

After discussing the possibility to include the tennis courts as a part of the school
building, Amy and Angela decided to not make changes to their designs and
explored the idea of a school building with three equal-area floors that totals to
11,000m2, and decided that each floor would take up 3670m2, or 36.7 squares.2
Angela: We got this!
Teacher: What’s that? What’s that 70? Two floors?
Angela: Yea.
Amy: Three floors!
Angela: Wait. . . . 1-1-0 divided by . . . 36.66667 so I round this to 7.
Amy: 36.7?

Upon further discussion, Amy and Angela interpreted 36.7 as the need to draw a
rectangle that has an area of 36.7 squares on the grid. When they discussed the
possible length and width of a rectangle with an area of 36.7 squares, they quickly
dismissed their solution, and further chatted with each other the school building they
were in and came to the realization that the floors do not need to have equal floor
areas. They eventually settled on a building with two floors where the main floor is
larger than the second floor. They then drew two rectangles, one inside the other, to
represent the school building, and assigned the remaining space on the grid as green
space (see Fig. 14).
Although they had a solution that satisfied all of the task requirements, Amy and
Angela were not satisfied. They began to make modifications to their design to
improve students’ school life (see Fig. 15). First they turned the all-weather soccer
field into a soccer stadium, and then added a garden next to the parking lot for
additional green space. The garden is 60m by 20m with lots of trees and hedges.
There is a gate (approximately 3m wide) on one side of the garden, and a bench
inside the garden. As a finishing touch, Amy and Angela added a path to the front
entrance of the school, and two 20m wide front and back doors to the school.
Unfortunately, the two doors were placed on the second floor of the school building
rather than the first, and the path connects the edge of the school grounds to the
second floor of the school building rather than the ground floor. This could simply be
a mistake as they overlooked where the outline of the first floor of the school
building was. After installing these additional features, Amy and Angela concluded
their solution was satifactory and submitted their solution.

2
Three floors of 3670m2 per total up to 11,010m2, which is slightly larger than the required
11,000m2.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 289

Fig. 14 Representation of
Amy and Angela’s work to
include the school (orange)

Fig. 15 Amy and Angela’s submitted solution

Modelling Analysis

Amy and Angela’s modelling behavior can be charted through Borromeo Ferri’s
(2006) modelling cycle (see Fig. 16). This begins when they identified the parking
lot as something ambiguous, as no information was provided other than that it needs
to fit 30 vehicles (real situation (RS13). Drawing from her EMK, Amy identified the
length and width of vehicles as important factors in the designs (MRS2) but were not
certain what to make of these measurements within their design. These actions
helped reduce some ambiguity, but were not sufficient to help them move forward.

3
RS1 means that students were at the real situation (RS) stage of the modelling cycle, step 1 of their
overall modelling process. MRS stands for mental representation of the situation, RM stands for real
model, MM stands for mathematical model, MS stands for mathematical solution, RSoln stands for
real solution, and MC stands for modelling cycle.
290 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Fig. 16 A diagrammatic representation of Amy and Angela’s entire modelling process. The green
arrows (3–8, MC1) represent their work on the usable space; the orange arrows (9–14, MC2)
represent their work on the soccer field; the purple arrows (15–20, MC3) represent their work on the
tennis courts; the blue arrows (1–2, 21–26, MC4) represent their work on the parking lot; and the
red arrows (27–41, MC5–7) represent their work on the school building

Instead of spending more time on the parking lot, Amy and Angela put it on hold and
worked on other aspects of the problem.
As the girls re-read the instructions they focused on the distance between the
buildings and the property lines (RS3). They interpreted this as a restriction to the
“usable space” on the grid (MRS4), made plans to create an outline on the grid
(RM5), drew from the instructions the information they needed, and applied their
mathematical skills to convert the distance away from the property line into number
of squares on the grid (MM6, MS7). They interpreted their solution as an outline on
the grid and used it to represent the space they could use (RSoln8). This is Amy and
Angela’s first complete modelling cycle (MC1, steps 3–8).
After the outline, the girls moved on to the soccer field (MC2, steps 9–14) and the
two tennis courts (MC3, steps 15–20). They took a similar approach to the usable
space and outlined these structures on the grid. One thing that is worth mentioning
here is Amy and Angela’s rotation of the soccer field after they generated a real
solution for the tennis courts, as they recognized the overall relationships between
the locations and placements of the buildings, and that the rotation allows them to
have a better use of space.
Moving on to the parking lot (MC4, steps 21–26), the girls re-read the instruc-
tions (RS 21), and focused on creating a 30 car parking lot (MRS22). They drew
some sketches of parking spaces based on the measurements they took, but
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 291

experienced difficulties in visualizing the relationship between the vehicles and the
parking spaces and the relationship between the parking spaces and the parking lot
(RM23). Although they have both visited various parking lots as passengers, neither
had reached the legal driving age at the time of the study, and had never experienced
parking lots from a driver’s perspective. Their lack of EMK became a hindrance to
their modelling process. A discussion with the teacher led them to deepen their
understanding of parking lots, to update their real model, and eventually to generate
their mathematical model (MM24), mathematical solution (MS25), and real solution
(RSoln26). Unfortunately, despite all their hard work, the students failed to create a
reasonable parking lot design: there was no indication of an entrance or an exit to the
parking lot in this design; they did not include any driveways that connect the edge
of the school property line with the parking lot; and their driveway inside the parking
lot is too narrow for most if not all vehicles. It seems that their discussion with the
teacher and with each other was not sufficient to expand their EMK for the purpose
to generate a reasonable parking lot design.
Finally, the girls proceeded to work on the school building (MC5, steps 27–32).
They re-read the instructions (RS27) and aimed to determine the amount of floor
space the school building needed on the grid (MRS28). They proceeded to make
decisions about the shape of the school building (RM29), built a mathematical model
by looking for the factors of 11,000, converted these into number of squares (MM30,
MS31), and interpreted 11 and 10 as the length and width of the school in terms of
squares (RSoln32). This is when they got stuck, as they could not find the space they
needed on the grid.
Amy’s “AHA!” moment (Liljedahl 2005) during their discussion with the teacher
helped them to recognize the possibility to extend the vertical height of the school
building in order to satisfy the floor area and to decrease the construction area
required (MC6, steps 33–37). This realization (MRS33) allowed the girls to draw
from their past experiences to think about the various shapes and possible height of
the school building, and to possibly make changes to the designs of the tennis courts.
As they moved forward, they toyed with the idea of a three-floored school building
(RM34), built a mathematical model (35) to determine the area occupied by the
building on the grid (MS36), but became dissatisfied with their solution (RSoln37).
They abandoned their solution as they realized that the floor areas of the school
building did not need to be equal, and they re-entered the modelling cycle once more
(MC7, steps 38–41), made modifications to their real model (38), and eventually
settled on a two floor building where the main floor is larger than the second floor
(MM39, MS40, RSoln41).
Finally, Amy and Angela read over the instructions again to verify that they had
satisfied all the requirements. However, they felt they could further improve their
work and therefore made modifications to their designs to make the school grounds
aesthetically pleasing. To make their school grounds more appealing, they created a
garden next to the parking lot, added a path to the front entrance of the school, and
added a front and a back door to their school building.
292 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

Flow Analysis

Amy and Angela’s progress through the Design the New School task can also be
analyzed through the lens of flow. More specifically, their progress on the task can be
charted on Liljedahl’s (2018) modified flow diagram (see Fig. 17).
Amy and Angela began the task as presented in Fig. 9 (1). Their first choice was
to work on designing the parking lot (2). Although this proved to be too challenging
for them at the time they did make some immediate progress around how big a single
car could be (3). From here they decided to shift to what they thought was the easiest
of the aspects to work on – determining the usable space around the perimeter of the
lot (4). This was easily achieved so they used the same strategy to determine the size
and placement of the soccer field (5). This shift from the boundary to the soccer field
did not represent an increase in challenge, but allowed for the sequential develop-
ment of the skill of scaling dimensions in the problem into the diagram (6).
Amy and Angela then moved onto trying to figure out how to place the tennis
courts (7). This proved to be a little bit more challenging as they needed to reposition
the soccer field and scale and place the tennis courts (8). After this they shifted back
to figuring out the needed dimensions and placement of the parking lot (9). As
before, this was a significant increase in challenge for the two girls requiring them to,
for the first time in the task, make estimates based on Amy’s earlier measurements
(10).
The only aspect left for them to consider was the dimensions and placement of the
actual school building. At first, this seemed like it was going to only be a matter of
doing some scaling (11), but it actually turned out to be much more challenging
(12) and was not resolved until they realized that they could make a two story
structure (13). At this point they needed only to figure out how to divide up the area
of the two floors (14).
Once they had satisfied all of the requirements of the task they then challenged
themselves to make it more aesthetically pleasing (15) which resulted in the
recalculation of the area of the two floors of the school and adding some realistic
elements (16).
The overall time that Amy and Angela spent on the task was 75 min, during
which they were highly engaged the whole time. When looking at the flow analysis

Fig. 17 Amy and Angela’s

flow analysis
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 293

of their activity it is easy to see why. Although they got off to a rough start by
deciding to first solve the parking lot issue, their perseverance provided a buffer until
they autonomously opted for something more manageable. From there, they
progressed in a staircase fashion wisely selecting, in turn, progressively more
challenging aspects of the task to work on as their abilities increased (4–12). At
that point, they got stuck. But, again, their perseverance kept them working until
they had their break through. From there it was routine work until they placed the
school (12–14). At that they again exercised their autonomy and chose to increase
the challenge by improving the aesthetics of their solution.

Modelling-Flow Analysis

Putting the two aforementioned analyses together we begin to see a synchronicity

between the nature of the tasks itself, Amy and Angela’s modelling behavior, and
their engagement. Most obvious in this is the way in which the task, with its naturally
evolving complexity, increases the challenge of the task at hand as the girls move
through the problem. This evolving complexity is due, in part, to the degrees of
freedom the students have in solving this problem. More significant, in this regard,
however, was the demand for extra-mathematical knowledge that was just beyond
the students’ grasp. Knowing how wide a car was, although easy to measure, still left
them with the task of figuring out the size of a parking spot and how wide the access
lane should be. Although more accessible, the extra-mathematical knowledge also
came into play when Amy and Angela struggled to fit the school building into the
space that was left.
This synchronicity between the modelling task and flow also worked the other
way – in keeping the modelling process going. The fact that the students were in flow
motivated the students to keep going around and around the modelling cycle over
and over again. The wrong turn at the beginning of this cycle was buffered both by
Amy and Angela’s perseverance as well as their autonomous actions to pull the
challenge into balance with their skill level. Without either of these it is easy to
imagine the modelling cycle grinding to a halt before it really got going.

Conclusion

It is clear from the aforementioned analysis that Borromeo Ferri’s (2006) modelling
cycle and Liljedahl’s (2018) modified theory of flow worked in perfect synchronicity
in analyzing the experiences of Amy and Angela as they worked through the Design
a New School task. The charting of Amy and Angela’s dynamic state of flow
demonstrated the interplay between the evolving nature of the modelling task and
their emerging abilities. Sometimes this interplay resulted in an imbalance between
294 M. Liu and P. Liljedahl

challenge and skill. But, in each of these cases, the girls were able to remain in the
state of flow through a rebalancing of skill and challenge.
This rebalancing was sometimes facilitated by Amy and Angela, themselves.
Liljedahl (2018) found that changes in challenge and ability were often self-
facilitated through students’ autonomous actions to seek challenge and help from
their peers and teacher. As we see in the case of Amy and Angela, the girls first
attempted to design the parking lot. But, their abilities were not up for this challenge.
They lacked the required extra-mathematical knowledge (EMK) to proceed. As
such, they moved away from the challenge and worked on things that were less
demanding to stay engaged with the problem. As their skills improved, they came
back and took on the challenge they once shied away from. During their designs of
the school building, the challenges they faced also exceed their ability. Conversely,
when they had satisfied the conditions of the task they increased the challenge by
now considering the effect of their design on student life.
However, changes in the balance between challenge and ability may also be
facilitated by the evolving nature of the task. The Design a New School task consists
of elements with various complexities – while some are not very cognitively
demanding (such as the usable area), others require students to acquire and combine
their EMK along with their mathematical skills to produce a reasonable solution
(such as the parking lot and the school building). As we see in the case of Amy and
Angela, the girls successfully solved the task by moving forward from the least
complicated element of the task to the most complicated. As such, the interplay
between extra-mathematical knowledge and the task contribute to the maintenance
of the students’ engagement.

References

Barbosa, J. C. (2006). Mathematical modelling in classroom: A critical and discursive perspective.

ZDM, 38(3), 293–301.
Blum, W., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt?
Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45–58.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? The
example “Filling up”. In Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and
economics. Chichester: Horwood Publishing Limited.
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(1), 37–68.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. ZDM, 38(2), 86–95.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2010). On the influence of mathematical thinking styles on learners’ modeling
behavior. JMD, 31, 99–118.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Chapter 12: Flow and Modelling 295

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Galbraith, P. (2012). Models of modelling: Genres, purposes or perspectives. Journal of Mathe-
matical Modelling and Application, 1(5), 3–16.
Kaiser, G. (2005). Mathematical modelling in school–examples and experiences. Mathemati-
kunterricht im Spannungsfeld von Evolution und Evaluation. Festband für Werner Blum,
99–108.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on
undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 219–236.
Liljedahl, P. (2010, September 30). Numeracy tasks. Retrieved October 2017, from http://www.
peterliljedahl.com/teachers/numeracy-t.
Liljedahl, P. (2018). On the edges of flow: Student problem solving behavior. In S. Carreira, N.
Amado, & K. Jones (Eds.), Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving:
A focus on technology, creativity and affect (pp. 505–524). New York: Springer.
Maaβ, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. JMD, 31, 285–311.
Mason, J., & Davis, J. (1991). Modelling with mathematics in primary and secondary schools.
Geelong: Deakin University.
Pollak, H. O. (1979). The interaction between mathematics and other school subjects. In New trends
in mathematics teaching (pp. 232–248). Paris: International Commission on Mathematical
Instruction (ICMI).
Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy.
Washington, DC: The National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
Chapter 13: A Coda on Affect

Bharath Sriraman

Abstract A coda to the different chapters on affect in mathematical modeling is

offered in relation to the psychological literature on affect.

Keywords Coda · Affect · Mathematical modeling · Psychological theories

Mathematical modeling is by its very nature inexplicably linked to what mathema-

ticians find interesting and worthy of investigation, whether it be natural phenomena,
or phenomena occurring in the social and digital worlds. The mathematics invented
by Newton to solve problems in mechanics and optics is arguably an exemplary case
of viewing differential Calculus as the language of modeling the laws of the
universe. Today modeling is essential to understand problems in biology, epidemi-
ology, information sciences, business and phenomena occurring in social media.
Unlike the canned “word” problems that occur in differential equations textbooks
that require recipe driven approaches that involve the application of canonical
functions (exponential, logistic etc.), problems that warrant mathematical modeling
in the real world lie at the heart of human interest. Human interest in turn is
intertwined with the notion of affect.
It has become common to encounter books in the popular mathematics or science
sections of book stores with titles such as Loving and Hating Mathematics (Hersh
and John-Steiner 2010) or Love and Math: The heart of hidden reality (Frenkel
2013), which suggest that there is more to the discipline of mathematics than its
assumed objectivity and neutrality in the sciences. Seemingly there are dispositions
that one takes to the subject, and “comments about liking (or hating) mathematics are
as common as reports of instructional activities” (Mcleod 1992, p. 575). There are

B. Sriraman (*)
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
e-mail: SriramanB@mso.umt.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 297

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_18
298 B. Sriraman

also other ways in which the subject has been anthropomorphized, in references to its
beauty or coldness. Bertrand Russell once remarked:
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold
and austere, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music.

Given these allusions to the discipline of mathematics per se, and consequently to its
teaching, learning and doing, it should come as no surprise that affect is an important
dimension that needs to be studied and understood if the goal of mathematics
education is to stimulate learners’ interest in the subject.
The chapters in this book on Affect in Mathematical Modeling invoke a cornu-
copia of terms such as (in alphabetical order) anxiety, beliefs, challenges, emotions,
engagement, feelings, flow, frustration, happiness, etc., and numerous others that can
be subsumed under the umbrella of affect. With a little effort one could conceivably
use up the entire alphabet to coin terms that can fit within the study of affect. With
this skepticism in mind, the goal of this coda is twofold:
1. To fix several arbitrary starting points to research on affect in mathematics
education.
2. To re-examine terms borrowed from psychology that form the basis of much of
the research on affect in mathematics education.
The opening chapter by Chamberlin provides us with a detailed introduction on
the origins of affect research in psychology in the study of cognition and its
subsequent development in mathematics education in relation to understanding
problem solving and modeling. The relationship between the three constructs of
affect, cognition and mathematical modeling is also developed. Given the lengthy
history of affect in Chamberlin’s chapter, can a circumspect reader point to a
different starting point for mathematics education? One could point to Alba
Thompson’s seminal dissertation on the beliefs and practices of middle school
teachers completed in 1982. Thirty six years later, have we made any progress in
relation to that the starting point? The findings of the three case studies that
constituted this dissertation were reported in Educational Studies in Mathematics
(Thompson 1984), which delineated the correspondence between beliefs on the
nature of mathematics and mathematics teaching and its correspondence to practice
in the classroom. Thompson’s (1984) paper has been cited more than 2000 times to
date, and the findings of her study have been well validated for the population of
both pre-service elementary school mathematics teachers as well as in-service
teachers. In a nutshell beliefs held by an individual are a stable construct and difficult
to “perturb” or change and shape their instructional behavior in the classroom.
The reason for using the term “beliefs” in a coda that purports to address affect is
because beliefs as Pajares (1992) noted travels under the guise of “attitudes, values,
judgements, perceptions, conceptions, . . .”, in other words the entire gamut of the
affective domain. Leder and Grootenboer (2005) proposed a conceptual model to
help us understand the affective domain of research in mathematics education. In this
model one end of the spectrum contains increased cognition whereas the other end
contains increased affect. A reciprocal relationship is suggested between cognition
Chapter 13: A Coda on Affect 299

and affect, i.e. higher cognition is linked with lower affect, and higher affect is linked
with lower cognition. Beliefs, attitudes, emotions (and values) are the variables that
determine where one lands in the spectrum. These three terms need further
unpacking. What if any is the difference between beliefs, attitudes and emotions?
The investigation of affect in mathematics education has no definite starting point
per se. One could look for its origins in psychology, although earlier in the coda the
dissertation by Thompson was pointed to as a reasonable starting point. Some might
argue that among the earliest educators to note the importance of affective as well as
cognitive aspects of learning was John Dewey. In The Psychological and The
Logical in Teaching Geometry (1903) he pointed out that a geometry teacher cannot
just be concerned with “development into the most orderly intellectual system
possible. He or she must take into account that learning develops out of the present
habits and experiences of emotion, thought, and action of the students”
(p. 399).“What a given statement means to a pupil depends absolutely on the
interaction set up between the topic presented and the habits which the pupil brings
with him to it” (p. 391). However Dewey did not elaborate on the emotions or habits
that might indicate whether or not the student was prepared to study a geometry
course that emphasized proof.
In mathematics education the term beliefs is often conflated with attitudes and
these two terms are conflated with emotions and/or feelings. Beliefs are typically
defined as the mental acceptance of, or conviction in the truth or actuality of
something. According to Mcleod (1991), beliefs are largely cognitive in nature,
and are developed over a relatively long period of time. D’Andrade (1981) suggested
that beliefs develop gradually through a process much like “guided discovery”
where children respond to the situations in which they find themselves by develop-
ing beliefs that are consistent with their experience. The development of beliefs
about mathematics is also heavily influenced by the cultural setting of the classroom
(Schoenfeld 1989). These factors make beliefs very hard to change. Hence educa-
tional beliefs of students play a part in their knowledge base and subsequent
behaviors (teaching and learning of mathematics). According to Hiebert (1999)
“change does not happen automatically; it requires learning.” (p. 15). Namely-
learning alternatives to traditional modes of teaching and teacher-student norms
and expectations. Without changing or causing conflict in students’ beliefs, status
quo becomes the outcome. Hence cognitive conflict is needed to cause changes in
beliefs. Some neuroscientists posit that neural pathways are more or less hardwired
over time and reconfiguring them is difficult. Mandler (1984) claimed that most
affective factors arise out of emotional responses to the interruption of plans or
planned behavior leading to “blockage”. In Mandler’s theory, these interruptions
result in a physiological response and the individual attempts to evaluate the
meaning of this blockage. Finally evaluation of this blockage could be either positive
or negative, reinforcing or contradicting the original belief.
Research on beliefs was considered important because beliefs (about mathemat-
ics, about self, about mathematics teaching and learning, among others) directly
influence the development of attitudes and emotional responses to mathematics.
300 B. Sriraman

Here is also conflation of the terms “beliefs” and “attitudes.” Students often have a
certain state of mind (or disposition) regarding mathematics. For example a student
may either like geometric proofs or dislike it. Numerous studies have indicated that
changing attitudes is difficult even under good conditions since attitudes have to first
be brought to the surface of one’s cognitive thoughts and then discussed in detail
(Bassarear 1986). Attitudes often develop out of emotional responses and as a
teacher one can influence students’ attitudes regarding mathematics to a certain
extent, by providing positive experiences. In comparison to research on beliefs and
attitudes, research on emotional reactions to mathematics has only recently come to
the forefront of affective research. Buxton’s (1981) research dealt with adults who
reported that their emotional reaction to mathematics was panic. This panic led to a
high degree of physical arousal, which was so difficult to control that it disrupted
their ability to concentrate on a task. Anxious people process information in a highly
selective way: they attend to the most threatening elements of the information
presented. This selective attention may cause math-anxious students to focus on
irrelevant parts of a math problem. This drains cognitive resources and lessens
performance (Ashcraft and Faust 1994). This type of anxiety is also felt by mathe-
maticians working on long-standing problems, but many are able to persevere in
spite of setbacks because of their meaningful engagement with problems.
Some commentaries for the three parts in the book discuss the interaction of affect
and cognition in the context of solving problems (modeling) and examine the notion
of “belief systems” in which affect and cognition are not treated as separate entities
(e.g., Schoenfeld). Goldin views student engagement with mathematics as a basic
human need or creating a sense of belonging in the classroom setting, which is
further elaborated in the context of “happiness” as a basic human need in contrast to
anxiety (Wiezel et al.). Ideally solving mathematical problems should result in a
sense of pleasure or satisfaction. Jindřich Nečas who used to run advanced seminars
on partial differential equations when I was in graduate school often remarked on the
need to “feel” natural phenomena such as the turbulence of water and current flows
near rocks and dams before beginning the process of modeling such phenomena. As
one of the foremost applied mathematicians of his generation he devoted a major
portion of his life to the general blow-up solution of the Navier-Stokes equation in
R3 which is one of the seven (unsolved) millennium problems. In spite of setbacks he
derived pleasure and satisfaction at being able to immerse himself into a problem
that went back to the discovery of Newton’s second law. We don’t expect students to
engage in problems the way some professional mathematicians do, but modeling
offers both context and meaning that can fuel affect for persistence. This is the hope
for investigating the interaction of affect with mathematical modeling in this book.
Chapter 13: A Coda on Affect 301

References

Ashcraft, M. H., & Faust, M. W. (1994). Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic performance:
An exploratory investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 97–125.
Bassarear, T. (1986). Attitudes and beliefs about learning, about mathematics, and about self which
most seriously undermine performance in mathematics courses (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 299 147). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Buxton, L. (1981). Do you panic about maths? London: Heinemann.
D’ Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179–195.
Dewey, J. (1903). The psychological and the logical in teaching geometry. Educational Review, 25,
387–399.
Frenkel, E. (2013). Love and math: The heart of hidden reality. New York: Basic Books.
Hersh, R., & John-Steiner, V. (2010). Loving and hating mathematics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and standards. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.
Leder, G., & Grootenboer, P. (2005). Affect and mathematics education. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 17(2), 1–8.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.
Mcleod, D. B. (1991). Research on learning and instruction in mathematics: The role of affect. In
E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and
learning mathematics (pp. 55–82). Albany: State University of New York Press.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596).
New York: Macmillan.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations about students’ mathematical belief and behavior. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338–355.
Thompson, A. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics
teaching to mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–112.
References

Adamek, C. (2016). Der Lösungsplan als Strategiehilfe beim mathematischen Modellieren –

Ergebnisse einer Fallstudie. In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2016, herausgegeben von
Institut für Mathematik und Informatik der Pädagogischen Hochschule Heidelberg (Eds.).
Münster: WTM.
Adler, A. (1917). The neurotic constitution. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.
Adler, A. (1998. edition; first English pub. 1927). Understanding human nature. Center City:
Hazelden Foundation.
Afari, E. (2013). Examining the factorial validity of the attitudes towards mathematics inventory
(ATMI) in the United Arab Emirates: Confirmatory factor analysis. International Review of
Contemporary Learning Research, 2(1), 15–29.
Aiken, L. R. (1972). Research on attitude toward mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 19, 229–234.
Aiken, L. (1974). Two scales of attitude toward mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 5, 67–71.
Akey, T. (2006). School context, students’ attitudes and behavior and academic achievement: An
exploratory analysis. New York: MDRC.
Akinsola, M. K., & Olowojaiye, F. B. (2008). Teacher instructional methods and student attitudes
towards mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 60–73.
Alamolhodaei, H. (2009). Mathematics education principles. Mashhad: Jahane Farad publication.
Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention,
reflection, critique. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
An, Y., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design
problems solving and metacognitive skills in online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 552–568.
Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (1982). Assessing affective characteristics in schools. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in schools (2nd ed.).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Anhalt, C. O., Staats, S., & Cortez, R. (2018). Mathematical modeling and culturally relevant
pedagogy. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and
culture in STEM education (pp. 307–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-
4_14.
Aristotle, & Brown, L. (Ed). (2009). The Nicomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Armstrong, A. C. (2008). The fragility of group flow: The experiences of two small groups in a
middle school mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(2), 101–115.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 303

S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9
304 References

Art Institute. (2017). The history and evolution of cell phones. Retrieved on 19 May, 2017 from:
https://www.artinstitutes.edu/about/blog/the-history-and-evolution-of-cell-phones
Artigue, M., & Blomhoj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based in mathematics educations.
ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 797–810.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Faust, M. W. (1994). Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic performance:
An exploratory investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 97–125.
Azizi, Z., & Ghonsooly, B. (2015). Exploring flow theory in toefl texts: Expository and argumen-
tative genre. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 210–215.
Baker, L., & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw &
J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Bakhshalizade, S., Brojerdian, N., Dehghani, Z., Didehvar, F., Taheri, M., Alamian, V., &
Mesgarani, H. (2013). Mathematics 1. Tehran: The general bureau for textbook printing and
distribution. Ministry of Education.
Baldinger, E., Louie, N., & the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project.
(2016). TRU conversation guide: A tool for teacher learning and growth. Berkeley/Lansing:
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley/College of Education, Mich-
igan State University. Retrieved from: https://truframework.org/tools and/or http://map.
mathshell.org/materials/pd.php.
Barbosa, J. C. (2006). Mathematical modelling in classroom: A critical and discursive perspective.
ZDM, 38(3), 293–301.
Barbosa, J. C. (2010). The students’ discussions in the modeling environment. In R. Lesh, P. L.
Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling
competencies (pp. 365–372). New York: Springer.
Barnes, M. (2000). “Magical” moments in mathematics: Insights into the process of coming to
know. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 33–43.
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A
multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1),
13–35.
Bassarear, T. (1986). Attitudes and beliefs about learning, about mathematics, and about self which
most seriously undermine performance in mathematics courses (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 299 147). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A
guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69–80.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev
ed.). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the
selection of science based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329–345.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Blomhøj, M. (2004). Mathematical modelling: A theory for practice. In International perspectives
on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 145–159). Gothenburg: National Center for Math-
ematics Education.
Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2006). Teaching mathematical modeling through project work.
ZDM, 38(2), 163–177.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc..
Blum, W. (2011). Can modeling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In
G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. A. Stillman (Eds.), International perspectives on
the teaching and learning of mathematical modeling, trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modeling. ICTMA14 (Vol. 1, pp. 15–30). Dordrecht: Springer.
References 305

Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modeling: What do we know, what can we do?
In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical
education (pp. 73–96). Cham: Springer.
Blum, W., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt?
Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45–58.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005a). “Filling up” – the problem of independence-preserving teacher
interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the
4th European Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 1623–1633). Gerona: FUNDEMI IQS –
Universitat Ramon Llull.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005b). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? The
example “Filling up”. In Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and
economics. Chichester: Horwood Publishing Limited.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2006). “Filling up” – The problem of independence-preserving teacher
interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In Bosch, M. (Ed.), CERME-4 –
Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European Society for Research in mathematics
education, Guixol.
Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling
problems? The example “Sugarloaf” and the DISUM Project. In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith,
W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12) – Education, engineering and
economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.
Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, application, and
links to other subjects-state, trends, and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.
Blum, W., & Schukajlow, S. (2018). Selbständiges Lernen mit Modellierungsaufgaben –
Untersuchung von Lernumgebungen zum Modellieren im Projekt DISUM. In S. Schukajlow
& W. Blum (Eds.), Evaluierte Lernumgebungen zum Modellieren. Realitätsbezüge im
Mathematikunterricht (pp. 51–72). Springer Spektrum: Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-658-20325-2_4.
Blum, W., et al. (2002). ICMI Study 14: Application and modelling in mathematics education –
Discussion document. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(1–2), 149–171.
Blum, W., Galbraith, P. L., Henn, H., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and applications in
mathematics education. The 14th ICMI study. New York: Springer.
Bochichhio, R. (2017, July 10). Ponte Salvador-Itaparica: edital sai em outubro. A Tarde. Retrieved
from: http://atarde.uol.com.br/
Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (2008). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan
J. Bishop to today. In P. Clarkson & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics
education (pp. 37–67). London: Springer.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling
process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 86–95.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2007). Individual modelling routes of pupils-analysis of modelling problems in
mathematical lessons from a cognitive perspective. In C. Heines (Ed.), Mathematical modelling
(ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 260–270). Chichester: Horwood
Publishing.
Borromeo Ferri, R. (2010). On the influence of mathematical thinking styles on learners’ modeling
behavior. JMD, 31, 99–118.
Bracke, M., & Geiger, A. (2011). Real-world modelling in regular lessons: A long-term experiment.
In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 529–550). New York: Springer.
Brand, S. (2014). Erwerb von Modellierungskompetenzen: Empirischer Vergleich eines
holistischen und eines atomistischen Ansatzes zur Förderung von Modellierungskompetenzen.
Wiesbaden: Springer.
306 References

Bromme, R. (2005). Thinking and knowing about knowledge. In M. H. G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, &
F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign –grounding mathematics education (pp. 191–201).
New York: Springer.
Brown, A. L. (1984). Metakognition, Handlungskontrolle, Selbststeuerung und andere, noch
geheimnisvollere Mechanismen. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metakognition,
Motivation und Lernen (pp. 60–109). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition.
In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension skills: A natural
history of one program for enhancing learning. In J. D. Day & J. G. Borkowski (Eds.),
Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions for theory, assessment, and instructional prac-
tices (pp. 81–131). Norwood: Ablex.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrera, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering,
and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology
(Cognitive development) (Vol. 3, 4th ed., pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.
Brown, M., Brown, P., & Bibby, T. (2008). “I would rather die”: Reasons given by 16-year-olds for
not continuing their study of mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 3–8.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and
the future. ZDM, 38(2), 178–195.
Busse, A., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2003). Methodological reflections on a three-step-design com-
bining observation, stimulated recall and interview. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik,
35(6), 257–264.
Buxton, L. (1981). Do you panic about maths? London: Heinemann.
Cai, J. (Ed.). (2017). Compendium of research in mathematics education. Reston: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education. (n.d.). Douglas McLeod. Accessed on
17 May 2017 at: https://newscenter.sdsu.edu/education/crmse/douglas_mcleod.aspx
Chamberlin, S. A. (2008). What is problem solving in the mathematics classroom? Philosophy of
Mathematics Education, 23, 1–25.
Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). A review of instruments created to assess affect in mathematics. Journal
of Mathematics Education, 7, 167–182.
Chamberlin, S. A. (2019). The construct of affect in mathematical modelling. In [to be completed].
Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2009). Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning,
and teaching. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New research perspectives (pp. 117–136).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2010). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities,
differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321–338.
Cirillo, M., Pelesko, J., Felton-Koestler, M., & Rubel, L. (2016). Perspectives on modeling in
school mathematics. In Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Mathematical modeling
and modeling mathematics (pp. 3–16). Reston: NCTM.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Sharpe, C. D. (2017). Conducting design studies to investigate and support
mathematics students’ and teachers’ learning. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 208–233). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2010). The Jasper Series as an example of
anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment. Educational Psychologist,
27(3), 291–315.
Coleman, L. (2006). A report card on the state of research on the talented and gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 346–350.
References 307

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newmann, S. E. (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in
honor of Robert Glaser. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of
reading, writing, and mathematics (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crouch, R. M., & Haines, C. R. (2004). Mathematical modelling: Transitions between the real
world and the mathematical model. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science
and Technology, 35, 2.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row/Cambridge University Press.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life (REP
ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience
sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 185–199.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & McCormack, J. (1986). The influence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 67
(6), 415–419.
Czocher, J. A. (2014). Towards building a theory of mathematical modelling. In P. Liljedahl,
C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME38 and
PME-NA36 (Vol. 2, pp. 353–360). Vancouver: PME.
D’ Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179–195.
D’Amore, B., & Martini, B. (1999). Didactical contract, mental and intuitive models in solving
standard school problems. In A. Gagatsis (Ed.), A multidimensional approach to learning in
mathematics and science (pp. 3–24). Nicosia: Intercollege.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Greer, B. (2000). Connecting mathematics problem solving to the
real world. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference on mathematics
education into the 21st century: Mathematics for living (pp. 66–73). Amman: National Center
for Human Resources Development.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and
engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.
De la Fuente, C. (2016). Invariantes operacionales matemáticos en los proyectos de investigación
matemática con estudiantes de secundaria. Doctoral Dissertation, Madrid: Complutense Uni-
versity of Madrid.
De Visscher, A., & Noël, M. P. (2014). The detrimental effect of interference in multiplication facts
storing: Typical development and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
143, 2380–2400.
DeBellis, V. A. (1998). Mathematical intimacy: Local affect in powerful problem solvers. In
Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 435–440).
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1991). Interactions between cognition and affect in eight high
school students’ individual problem solving. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th
annual meeting of psychology of mathematics education-North America (Vol. 1, pp. 29–35).
Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1993). Analysis of interactions between affect and cognition in
elementary school children during problem solving. In J. R. Becker & B. Pense (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 15th annual meetings of psychology of mathematics education-North America
(Vol. 2, pp. 56–62). Pacific Grove: San Jose State University, Center for Mathematics and
Computer Science Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domain in mathematical problem solving. In
E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the
308 References

Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Lahti, Finland (Vol. 2, pp. 209–216). Helsinki:
University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1999). Aspects of affect: Mathematical intimacy, mathematical
integrity. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd conference of the international group
for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 249–256). Haifa: Technion University,
Department of Education in Technology and Science.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving:
A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 131–147. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10649-006-9028-2.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy.
European Psychologist, 10(4), 264–274.
Dewey, J. (1903). The psychological and the logical in teaching geometry. Educational Review, 25,
387–399.
Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Di Martino, P., & Morselli, F. (2006). Maths avoidance and the choice of university. In J. Novotná,
H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the
international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 425–432). Prague:
PME.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2001). Attitude toward mathematics: Some theoretical issues. In M. van
den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 351–358). Utrecht: PME.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2010). ‘Me and maths’: Towards a definition of attitude grounded on
students’ narratives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–48.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2011). Attitude towards mathematics: A bridge between beliefs and
emotions. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(4), 471–482.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2015). The construct of attitude in mathematics education. In B. Pepin &
B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education
(pp. 51–72). Heidelberg: Springer.
Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical
reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–137.
Domínguez, A., de la Garza, J., & Zavala, G. (2015). Models and modelling in an integrated physics
and mathematics course. In Mathematical modelling in education research and practice
(pp. 513–522). Cham: Springer.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana Press.
Dossey, J., McCrone, S., Giordano, F., & Weir, M. (2002). Mathematics methods and modeling for
today’s classroom: A contemporary approach to teaching grades 7–12. Pacific Grove: Brooks/
Cole.
Drakes, C. I. (2012). Mathematical modelling: From novice to expert. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Educational Testing Service (1951). Proceedings of the invitational conference on testing prob-
lems. Conference held in New York on 3 November, 1951.
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the
learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14.
Efklides, A. (2009). The new look in metacognition. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New
research perspectives (pp. 137–151). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 87(4), 499–518.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework
for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen &
F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implica-
tions for practice (pp. 409–434). New York: Cambridge University Press.
References 309

English, L. D. (2003). Problem posing in the elementary curriculum. In F. Lester & R. Charles
(Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 187–198). Reston: National Coun-
cil of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary school: Children’s construction of a
consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 303–329.
English, L. D. (2016). Developing early foundations through modeling with data. In C. Hirsch
(Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Mathematical modeling and modeling
mathematics (pp. 187–195). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. 17, 347–365.
English, L. D. (2018, forthcoming). Disruption and learning innovation cross STEM. Plenary paper
to be presented at the 5th international STEM in education conference, 21st–23rd November,
Brisbane.
English, L. D., & Fox, J. L. (2005). Seventh-graders’ mathematical modelling on completion of a
three-year program. In P. Clarkson et al. (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and
practice (Vol. 1, pp. 321–328). Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2009). Integrating engineering education within the elementary
and middle school mathematics curriculum. In B. Sriraman, V. Freiman, & N. Lirette-Pitre
(Eds.), Interdisciplinarity, creativity, and learning: Mathematics with literature, paradoxes,
history, technology, and modelling (pp. 165–175). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2011). Engineering-based modelling experiences in the
elementary classroom. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive
tools for scientific enquiry (Models and Modeling in Science Education Series) (pp. 173–194).
Dordrecht: Springer.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real-world problem. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 20(9), 532–539.
English, L. D., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In B. Sriraman & L. D.
English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (Advances in Math-
ematics Education, Series) (pp. 263–285). New York: Springer.
English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modeling in the early school years. Mathe-
matics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 58–79.
English, L.D., Bergman Arleback J., & Mousoulides, N. (2016). Reflections on progress in
mathematical modelling research. The second handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education: The journey continues (pp. 383–413).
Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., Goldin, G., Warner, L. B., Arias, C. C., Sanchez-Leal, L., Dunn,
M. & Cain, T. (2007). Studying the affective/social dimension of an inner-city mathematics
class. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 649–656). Lake Tahoe.
Erbas, A., Kertil, M., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., Alacaci, C., & Bas, S. (2014). Mathematical
modelling in mathematics education: Basic concepts and approaches. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1621–1627.
Eric, C. C. M. (2011). Primary 6 students’ attitudes towards mathematical problem-solving in a
problem-based learning setting. The Mathematics Educator, 13(1), 15–31.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Ernest, P. (1990). The relationship between objective and subjective knowledge of mathematics. In
F. Seeger & H. Steinbring (Eds.), The dialogue between theory and practice in mathematics
education (pp. 123–138). Bielefeld: IDM.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of the mathematics education. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Feierabend, R. L. (1960). Review of research on mathematics education. In Research problems in
mathematics education: Reports for a conference on psychological problems and research
methods (OE-12008 Cooperative Research Monograph No.3) (pp. 3–48). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
310 References

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instru-
ments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–33). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Frankl, V. E. (2014.; first English pub. 1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516061. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology:
Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(3), 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The American
Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Frenkel, E. (2013). Love and math: The heart of hidden reality. New York: Basic Books.
Freud, S. (1990.; first English pub 1922). Beyond the pleasure principle. New York: W. W. Norton.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reid.
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition. Cognitive Processing,
11(2), 133–142.
Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young
mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32–53.
Galbraith, P. (2012). Models of modelling: Genres, purposes or perspectives. Journal of Mathe-
matical Modelling and Application, 1(5), 3–16.
Galbraith, P., & Clatworthy, N. (1990). Beyond standard models-meeting the challenge of model-
ling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 137–163.
Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying blockages during transitions in
the modelling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 143–162.
Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical
performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,
155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanism of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadov & A. Ortony (Eds.),
Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 197–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The
nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
Glasersfeld, E. (2005). Thirty years of radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1),
9–12.
Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’
emotions and achievement – Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE approach.
Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Sampling and introduction to external validity.
In J. A. Gliner, G. A. Morgan, & N. L. Leech (Eds.), Research methods in applied setting: An
integrated approach to design and analysis (pp. 115–133). New York: Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Goldin, G. A. (2000). Affective pathways and representation in mathematical problem solving.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 209–219.
References 311

Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. Leder,

E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(pp. 59–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem
solving. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook on emotions in
education (pp. 391–414). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Goldin, G. A. (2017). Motivating desires for classroom engagement in the learning of mathematics.
In C. Andrà, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson, & P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in maths
classrooms (pp. 219–229). New York/Cham: Springer.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement
structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM – International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(4), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-
0348-z.
Gomez-Chacon, I. M. (2000). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 43, 149–168.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2011). Beliefs and strategies of identity in mathematical learning. In
B. Roesken & M. Casper (Eds.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVII:
Proceedings of the MAVI-18 conference, September 2012 (pp. 74–84). Finland: Helsinki.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2017a). Appraising emotion in mathematical knowledge: Reflections on
methodology. In U. Xolocotzin (Ed.), Understanding emotions in mathematical thinking and
learning (pp. 43–73). London: University of East Anglia.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2017b). Emotions and heuristics: The state of perplexity in mathematics.
Journal ZDM-Mathematics Education, 49, 323–338.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2018). Chapter 10: Hidden connections, double meanings A mathematical
viewpoint of affective and cognitive interactions in learning. In G. Kaiser, et al. (Eds.) Invited
lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13 Mono-
graphs. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_10.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M., & De la Fuente, C. (2018). Problem-solving and mathematical investigation:
Creative processes, actions and mediations. In N. Amado, S. Carreira, & K. Jones (Eds.),
Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving: A focus on technology,
creativity and affect. New York: Springer.
Goos, M. (1998). I don’t know if I’m doing it right or I’m doing it wrong! Unresolved uncertainty in
the collaborative learning of mathematics. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching
mathematics in new times (pp. 225–232). Gold Coast: Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia Publication.
Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way. Metacognitive strategies in collaborative
mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 229–260.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collab-
orative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.
Gravemeijer, K., & Stephan, M. (2002). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In
K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool
use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems.
Learning and Instruction, 7, 293–307.
Grouws, D. A. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
New York/Reston: Macmillan/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation and socially-shared regulation:
Exploring perspective of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Records, 113
(2), 240–264.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared
regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
312 References

Haines, C., & Crouch, R. (2005). Getting to grips with real world contexts: developing research in
mathematical modelling. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1655–1666). Spain.
Hannula, M. S. (2002). Attitude towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 25–46.
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63, 165–178.
Hannula, M. S. (2014). Affect in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hannula, M., Evans, J., Phillipou, G., & Zan, R. (2004). RF01: Affect in mathematics education-
exploring theoretical frameworks. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the
28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol.
1, pp. 107–136). Bergen: Bergen University College.
Hannula, M. S., Bofah, E. A., Tuohilampi, L., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2014). A longitudinal analysis
of the relationship between mathematics-related affect and achievement in Finland. In Pro-
ceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME (Vol. 38, pp. 249–256).
Hannula, M. S., Di Martino, P., Pantziara, M., Zhang, Q., Morselli, F., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E.,
Lutovac, S., Kaasila, R., Middleton, J. A., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2016). Attitudes, beliefs,
motivation and identity in mathematics education: An overview of the field and future directions
(ICME-13 Topical Surveys). Hamburg: SpringerOpen.
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student charac-
teristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th
grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29–41.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94
(3), 638–645.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008).
The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between
achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1),
105–122.
Hardré, P. L. (2011). Motivation for mathematics in rural schools: Student and teacher perspectives.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 213–233.
Harré, R. (2009). The second cognitive revolution. In K. Leidlmair (Ed.), After cognitivism: A
reassessment of cognitive science and philosophy (pp. 181–187). New York: Springer.
Harris, D., Black, L., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Pepin, B., Williams, J., & the TransMaths Team.
(2015). Mathematics and its value for engineering students: What are the implications for
teaching? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46
(3), 321–336.
Hattie, J. A. C., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.
Hersh, R. (1986). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics. In T. Tymoczko
(Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 9–28). Boston: Birkhauser.
Hersh, R., & John-Steiner, V. (2010). Loving and hating mathematics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hertz, H. (1894). Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange dargestellt. Leipzig:
Barth.
Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Sfard, A. (2012). Identity struggles in the mathematics classroom: On
learning mathematics as an interplay of mathematizing and identifying. International Journal of
Educational Research, 51–52, 128–145.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and standards. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.
References 313

Higgins, J. L. (1970). Attitude changes in a mathematics library utilizing a mathematics through

science approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1, 43–56.
Hodges, H. L. (1983). Learning styles: Rx for mathophobia. The Arithmetic Teacher, 30(7), 17–20.
Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An
introduction. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs
about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3–14). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofer, B. K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future
directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller
(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues
(pp. 227–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1),
88–140.
Hogan, K. (2001). Collective metacognition: the interplay of individual, social, and cultural
meanings in small groups’ reflective thinking. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology
research (Vol. 7, pp. 199–239). Huntington: Nova Science Publishers.
Hoyles, C. (1982). The Pupil’s view of mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
13, 349–372.
Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Hughes, M. (1975). Egocentrism in pre-school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edin-
burgh University.
Huitt, W. (1999). Conation as an important factor of mind. In Educational psychology interactive.
Valdosta: Valdosta State University. Retrieved February, 2017, from http://www.
edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/conation.html
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning?
Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition within
primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393.
Jansen, A. (2006). Seventh graders’ motivations for participating in two discussion-oriented
mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409–428.
Jansen, A., & Middleton, J. A. (2011). Motivation matters and interest counts: Fostering engage-
ment in mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Jastrow, J. (1901). Some currents and undercurrents in psychology. Psychological Review, 8, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075124.
Jaworski, B. (2004). Insiders and outsiders in mathematics teaching development: the design and
study of classroom activity. Research in Mathematics Education, 6, 3–22.
Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as
a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. Special Issue:
Relations between theory and practice in mathematics teacher Education, 9(2), 187–211.
Jaworski, B. (2014). Unifying complexity in mathematics teaching-learning development: A
theory-practice dialectic. In Y. Li et al. (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple
approaches and practices, advances in mathematics education (pp. 439–458). New York:
Springer.
Kaiser, G. (2005). Mathematical modelling in school–examples and experiences. Mathemati-
kunterricht im Spannungsfeld von Evolution und Evaluation. Festband für Werner Blum,
99–108.
Kaiser, G. (2007). Modeling and modeling competencies in school. In C. Haines (Ed.), Mathemat-
ical modeling (ICTMA 12). Education, engineering and economics; Proceedings from the
twelfth international conference on the teaching of mathematical modeling and applications
(pp. 110–119). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
Kaiser, G. (2017). The teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compen-
dium for research in mathematics education (pp. 267–291). Reston: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
314 References

Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in
mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310.
Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Borromeo Ferri, R., & Stillman, G. (Eds.). (2011a). Trends in teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14. New York: Springer.
Kaiser, G., Schwarz, B., & Buchholtz, N. (2011b). Authentic modelling problems in mathematics
education. In Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 591–601).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Kartal, O., Dunya, B. A., Diefex-Dux, H., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2016). The relationship between
students’ performance on conventional standardized mathematics assessments and complex
mathematical modeling problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science
(IJRES), 2(1), 239–252.
Kim, H. K., & Kim, S. (2010). The effects of mathematical modelling on creative production ability
and self-directed learning attitude. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 09–120.
Kim, Y. R., Park, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Varma, S. (2013). Multiple levels of metacognition and
their elicitation through complex problem-solving tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32
(3), 377–396.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The
effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research
Journal, 40, 281–310.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orienta-
tions. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David
McKay.
Krug, A., & Schukajlow, S. (2014). Metakognitive Lehrerinterventionen bei der Bearbeitung von
Modellierungsaufgaben mit multiplen Lösungen. In R. Roth & J. Ames (Eds.), Beiträge zum
Mathematikunterricht (pp. 675–678). Münster: WTM-Verlag.
Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Esmonde, I. (2017). Identity in research on mathematics education. In
J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 637–648). Reston:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lappan, G. (1999, September). Fostering a good mathematical disposition. NCTM News Bulletin.
Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009). Challenges in US mathematics education through a curriculum
developer lens. Educational Designer, 1(3). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/
issue3/article11/index.htm.
Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the
early years. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 7–27.
Larson, R. W., Shernoff, D. J., & Bempechat, J. (2014). In Shernoff, D. J., & Bempechat,
J. Engaging youth in schools: Evidence-based models to guide future innovations. NSSE
Yearbook. National Society for the Study of Education 113 (1), New York: Teachers College
Record (pp. 323–337).
Lawson, D., & Marion, G. (2008). An introduction to mathematical modeling. Unpublished
manuscript. Retrieved on 19 May, 2017 from.: https://people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~madjl/course_
text.pdf
Lazarides, R., & Watt, H. M. (2015). Girls’ and boys’ perceived mathematics teacher beliefs,
classroom learning environments and mathematical career intentions. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 41, 51–61.
Leder, G., & Grootenboer, P. (2005). Affect and mathematics education. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 17(2), 1–8.
Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable mathematics
education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport: Greenwood Pub-
lishing Group.
References 315

Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the

teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 87–113.
Lerman, S. (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Is plurality a problem? In B. Sriraman &
L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 99–109).
Heidelberg: Springer.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003b). Foundation of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics
teaching and learning. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and
modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 9–34).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (1992). Problem solving. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching mathematics
in grades K–8: Research-based methods (pp. 49–88). Newton: Allyn & Bacon.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007a). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), The
second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte:
Information Age.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007b). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Reston: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical
problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts
and processes (pp. 263–343). New York: Academic Press.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought
revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates, Inc..
Lesh, R. A., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003a). Model development
sequences. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling
perspective on problem solving, learning and instruction in mathematics and science education
(pp. 35–58). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003b). A models and modeling perspective on
metacognitive functioning in everyday situations where problem solvers develop mathematical
constructs. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling
perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 383–403). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., English, L. D., Sevis, S., & Riggs, C. (2013). Modeling as a means for making powerful
ideas accessible to children at an early age. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc
vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics (pp. 419–436).
New York: Springer.
Lester, F. K., Jr. (Ed.). (2007). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning. Charlotte: Information Age.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on
undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 219–236.
Liljedahl, P. (2006). Learning elementary number theory through a chain of discovery: Preservice
teachers’ encounters with pentominoes. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in
mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 141–172). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Liljedahl, P. (2010, September 30). Numeracy tasks. Retrieved October 2017, from http://www.
peterliljedahl.com/teachers/numeracy-t.
316 References

Liljedahl, P. (2018). On the edges of flow: Student problem solving behavior. In S. Carreira,
N. Amado, & K. Jones (Eds.), Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem
solving: A focus on technology, creativity and affect (pp. 505–524). New York: Springer.
Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2012). An investigation of the Fennema Sherman anxiety subscale.
Sage Journals, 46, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612459198.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational
Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255.
Lingefjärd, T. (2002). Mathematical modeling for preservice teachers: A problem from anesthesi-
ology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 117–143.
Lucas, B. J., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). People underestimate the value of persistence for creative
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 232–243.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.
Ma, X. (1999a). A meta- analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 520–540.
Ma, L. (1999b). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997a). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
28, 26–47.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997b). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics:
A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 89–120.
Maaß, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? ZDM, 38(2), 113–142.
Maaß, K. (2007). Mathematisches Modellieren. Aufgaben für die Sekundarstufe 1. Berlin:
Cornelsen.
Maass, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based
learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 887–899.
Maass, J., & Schloeglmann, W. (Eds.). (2009). Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New
research results. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Maaß, J., & Schlöglmann, W. (2009). Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Maaβ, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. JMD, 31, 285–311.
Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2011). The social- and self-based contexts associated with
students’ awareness, evaluation and regulation of their thinking during small-group mathemat-
ical modeling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 486–520.
Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2019). Designing research settings for the study of
metacognitive activity: A case for small group mathematical modeling. In [to be completed].
Maher, M. (1900). Psychology: Empirical and rational (4th ed.). New York: Longmans, Green, and
Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/13950-012.
Malmivuori, M. L. (2001). The dynamics of affect, cognition, and social environment in the
regulation of personal learning processes: The case of mathematics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved 23 January, 2011 from http://ethesis.
helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kas/kasva/vk/malmivuori/
Malmivuori, M. L. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63,
149–164.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Mason, J., & Davis, J. (1991). Modelling with mathematics in primary and secondary schools.
Geelong: Deakin University.
McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A
Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 227–252). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
References 317

Mcleod, D. B. (1991). Research on learning and instruction in mathematics: The role of affect. In
E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and
learning mathematics (pp. 55–82). Albany: State University of New York Press.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). New York/London: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc..
McLoed, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575–596). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to present.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 637–647.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1989). Affect and mathematical problem solving. New York:
Springer.
Mellone, M., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). The effect of rewording and dyadic
interaction on realistic reasoning in solving word problems. The Journal of Mathematical
Behaviour, 46, 1–12.
Mershet, K. (1993). How old is the shepherd? An essay about mathematics education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 74, 548–554.
Messick, S. J. (1979). Potential uses of non-cognitive measurement in education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 281–292.
Middleton, J. A., & Jansen, A. (2011). Motivation matters, and interest counts: Fostering engage-
ment in mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Middleton, J. A., & Jansen, A. (2017). SMiLES: secondary mathematics, in-the-moment, longitu-
dinal engagement study. Washington, DC: Proposal for funding submitted to the National
Science Foundation. Accepted.
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings,
generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30, 65–88.
Middleton, J. A., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. E. (2016a). Motivation in Springer open Attitudes,
beliefs, motivation and identity in math education: An overview of the field and future direc-
tions, ICME 13 (pp. 17–26). Germany: Hamburg.
Middleton, J., Mangu, D., & Lee, A. (2016b). A longitudinal study of mathematics and science
motivation patterns for STEM-intending high schoolers in the US. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the 13th international congress for mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement:
Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 667–699). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
77–86.
Mill, J. (1878). Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind (Vol. 1). London: Longmans, Green,
Reader, and Dyer.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and
does it matter? Results from a research synthesis 1984 – 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Mirlohi, M., Egbert, J., & Ghonsooly, B. (2011). Flow in translation exploring optimal experience
for translation trainees. Targets, 23(2), 251–271.
MIUR. (2010). Indicazioni Nazionali per i licei [Italian National Standards for Lyceums]. Retrieved
February 22, 2018, from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/licei2010/indicazioni_nuovo_
impaginato/_decreto_indicazioni_nazionali.pdf
MIUR. (2012). Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo di
istruzione [Italian National Standards for kindergarten and the first cycle of instruction].
318 References

Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.indicazioninazionali.it/documenti_Indicazioni_

nazionali/indicazioni_nazionali_infanzia_primo_ciclo.pdf
Mokos, E., & Kafoussi, S. (2013). Elementary students’ spontaneous metacognitive functions in
different types of mathematical problems. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(2),
242–267. https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.201.3.29.
Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., & Brown, A. (2014). Greenhouse design: An engineering unit. Science
Scope, 37(7), 51–57.
Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., et al. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical
model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 39, 168–183.
Murray, H. A. (2008;. first publ. 1938). Explorations in personality (70th anniversary ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM
project. In A. Gagatsis & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Mediterranean
conference on mathematical education (pp. 115–124). Athens: Hellenic Mathematical Society.
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.
Niss, M. (2012, December). Models and modelling in mathematics education. EMS Newsletter,
2012, 49–52.
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. 1–32). New York: Springer.
Nolan, K. (2012). Dispositions in the field: Viewing mathematics teacher education through the lens
of Bourdieu’s social field theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 201–215.
Novick, I. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 398–415.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic
and financial literacy. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Oliveira, A. M. P., & Barbosa, J. C. (2013). Mathematical modelling, mathematical content and
tensions in discourses. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching
mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 67–76). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Op’t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Epistemic dimensions of students’
mathematics-related belief systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2),
57–70.
Otte, M. (1994). Das Formale, das Soziale und das Subjektive. Eine Einführung in die Philosophie
und Didaktik der Mathematik. Franfurt: Suhrkamp. (The Formal, the Social and the Subjective.
An Introduction into Philosophy and Didactics of Mathematics) M. Ottes’s texts have been
translated by Jim Edinberg).
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Hill &
Wang.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,
and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18,
315–341.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(p. 259e282). New York: Springer.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook on emotions in
education. New York: Routledge.
References 319

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. p., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test
anxiety: Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress
& Coping, 17(3), 287–316.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value theory of achievement
emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.),
Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). San Diego: Academic.
Pepin, B., & Roesken-Winter, B. (2015). From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics
education. Zürich: Springer. isbn:978-3-319-06808-4.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–314). Charlotte: Infor-
mation Age.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.
Pinel, P. (n.d.). Retrieved on 26 April, 2017 from: http://www.pinelschool.org/pp.htm
Pollak, H. O. (1970). Applications of mathematics. In E. G. Begle (Ed.), The sixty-ninth yearbook of
the national society for the study of education (pp. 311–334). Chicago: The National Society for
the Study of Education.
Pollak, H. O. (1979). The interaction between mathematics and other school subjects. In New trends
in mathematics teaching (pp. 232–248). Paris: International Commission on Mathematical
Instruction (ICMI).
Pollak, H. (2003). A history of the teaching of modeling. In G. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A
history of school mathematics (pp. 647–669). Reston: NCTM.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning volume I: Induction and analogy in
mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Presmeg, N. (2003). Creativity, mathematizing, and didacticizing: Leen Streefland’s work con-
tinues. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 127–137.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and
metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning
and Instruction, 16(4), 374–387.
Quarteroni, A. (2009). Mathematical models in science and engineering. Notices of the American
Mathematical Society, 56, 10–19.
Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2005). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente
zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie. “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und
mathematisches Verständnis”: 1. Befragungsinstrumente. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung.
Vol. 13. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF [u.a.].
Ramm, G. C., Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R. H., Leutner, D., & Schiefele,
U. (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Münster: Waxmann.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation
of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement.
New York: Routledge.
Research and Educational Planning Organization. (2013). Secretariat of designing and producing
the curriculum of Islamic Republic of Iran (in Persian).
Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. The Elementary School
Journal, 84, 558–580.
Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 551–554.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., Baroody, A., Larsen, R., Curby, T., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do
teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in
mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170–185.
320 References

Romberg, T., & Wilson, J. (1969). NLSMA Reports, No. 7, The development of tests. Eric
Document: ED084112.
Rösel, A., Műnch, J., Richardson, I., Rausch, A., & Zhang, H. (Eds.). (2016). Are we ready for
disruptive improvement? In M. Kuhrmann, et al. (Eds.), Managing software process evolution
(pp. 77–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31545-4_5.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge.
Learning and Instruction, 32, 37–50.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Sanchez Leal, L., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2013). Being challenged in an urban classroom: A
case study documenting the engagement of a young male who wanted to “look smart”. Journal
of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research (JULTR), 9, 78–88.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic.
Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Interest as the missing motivator in self-regulation.
European Psychologist, 10(3), 175–186.
Schellings, G. L. M., & Hout-Wolters, v., Bernadette, H. A. M., Veenman, M. V. J., & Meijer,
J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive activities: The in-depth comparison of a task-specific
questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28
(3), 963–990.
Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM - The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149–161.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.),
Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations about students’ mathematical belief and behavior. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338–355.
Schoenfeld, A. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate
divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal
reasoning and education (pp. 311–343). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning. A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its
educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM, The International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014, November). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we
support teachers in creating them? Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0013189X1455.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Thoughts on scale. ZDM, The international journal of mathematics
education, 47, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0662-3.
Schoenfeld, A. (2016). Research in mathematics education. Review of Research in Education, 40,
497–528.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: The teaching
for robust understanding (TRU) framework. In C. Y. Charalambous & A.-K. Praetorius (Eds.),
Studying instructional quality in mathematics through different lenses: In search of common
ground (An issue of ZDM). Manuscript available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y.
References 321

Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). The teaching for
robust understanding (TRU) observation guide: A tool for teachers, coaches, administrators,
and professional learning communities. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of
California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://truframework.org/tools or http://map.mathshell.
org
Schorr, R. Y., & Koellner Clark, K. (2003). Using a modeling approach to consider the ways in
which teachers consider new ways in which to teach mathematics. Journal of Mathematical
Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 5(2), 191–210.
Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach to providing teacher development. In
R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on
teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 141–157). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schorr, R. Y., Epstein, Y. M., Warner, L. B., & Arias, C. C. (2010a). Chapter 27: Don’t disrespect
me: Affect in an urban math class. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford
(Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 313–325).
New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1_27.
Schorr, R. Y., Epstein, Y. M., Warner, L. B., & Arias, C. C. (2010b). Mathematical truth and social
consequences: The intersection of affect and cognition in a middle school classroom. Mediter-
ranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 107–134.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychological Review, 7,
351–371.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in ill-defined problem
solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1–16.
Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2013). Planning, monitoring and multiple solutions while solving
modeling problems. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th confer-
ence of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp.
177–184). Kiel: PME.
Schukajlow, S., & Leiss, D. (2011). Selbstberichtete Strategienutzung und mathematische
Modellierungskompetenz. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 32, 53–77.
Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching
methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-
efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237.
Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015a). Scaffolding mathematical modeling with a solution
plan. ZDM, 47(7), 1241–1254.
Schukajlow, S., Krug, A., & Rakoczy, K. (2015b). Effects of prompting multiple solutions for
modeling problems on students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3),
393–417.
Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stilman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling: a survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM Mathematics Education.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0933-5.
Sedig, K. (2007). Toward operationalization of ‘flow’ in mathematics learnware. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23(4), 2064–2092.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your
potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education:
Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
Sfard, A. (2007a). Commognition: Thinking as communicating, the case of mathematics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A. (2007b). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of
mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16,
565–613.
322 References

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and
mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A., & Lavie, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grown-ups cannot see as
different? —early numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237–309.
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating
learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.
Shahbari, J. A., & Tabach, M. (2016). Developing modelling lenses among practicing teachers.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(5), 717–732.
Shahbari, J. A., & Tabach, M. (2017). The commognitive framework lens to identify the develop-
ment of modelling routines. In B. Kaur, W. Kin Ho, & B. Heng Choy (Eds.), Proceedings of the
41th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol.
4, pp. 192–185). Singapore: PME.
Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi,
B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school
classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 57, 1–22.
Sidgwick, H. (1907). The methods of ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem
solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3),
325–341.
Sinclair, N. (2001). The aesthetic is relevant. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(1), 25–32.
Sjuts, J. (2003). Metakognition per didaktisch-sozialem Vertrag. Journal für Mathedidaktik., 24(1),
18–40.
Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. London: A. Millar.
Snow, R. E. (1996). Self-regulation as meta-conation? Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3),
261–267.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D., III. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative
functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 243–310). New York: Macmillan.
Souza, E. G., & Barbosa, J. C. (2014). Some implications of Wittgenstein’s idea of use for learning
mathematics through mathematical modelling. International Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 4, 114–138.
Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psycho-
analysis. New York: Norton.
Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups. Are two heads better than one. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 261–275.
Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy.
Washington, DC: The National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
Stender, P. (2017). The use of heuristic strategies in modelling activities. Journal
ZDM-Mathematics Education., on line version. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0901-5.
Stender, P., & Kaiser, G. (2015). Scaffolding in complex modeling situations. ZDM, 47(7),
1255–1267.
Stillman, G. (2011a). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and model-
ing tasks at secondary school. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.),
Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. ICTMA14. International Confer-
ence on the Teaching of Mathematical Modeling and Applications (pp. 165–180). Dordrecht:
Springer.
References 323

Stillman, G. (2011b). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and

modelling tasks at secondary school. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, &
G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning mathematical modelling (pp. 165–180).
New York: Springer.
Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with realworld connections:
Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2),
157–194.
Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2012). Mathematical modeling: Some issues and reflections. In
W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & K. Maaß (Eds.), Mathematikunterricht im Kontext von Realität,
Kultur und Lehrerprofessionalität (pp. 97–105). Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.
Stillman, G. A., Galbraith, P. L., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). A framework for success in
implementing mathematical modeling in the secondary classroom. In J. Watson & K. Beswick
(Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, [held at Wrest Point
Hotel Casino, Hobart, Tasmania, 2–6 July 2007] (pp. 688–707). Adelaide, SA: MERGA.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technical innovation. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
Suinn, R. M. (1970). The mathematics anxiety rating scale. Fort Collins: Colorado State University,
Department of Psychology.
Sullivan, P., & Mornane, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ use of, and students’ reactions to,
challenging mathematics tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 193.
Sullivan, P., Cheeseman, J., Michels, D., Mornane, A., Clarke, D., Roche, A., et al. (2011).
Challenging mathematics tasks: What they are and how to use them. In L. Bragg (Ed.), Maths
is multi-dimensional (pp. 33–46). Melbourne: Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Communicational perspectives on learning and teaching
mathematics: Prologue. Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM), 91(3), 299–306. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9638-7.
Tait-McCutcheon, S. L. (2008). Self-efficacy in mathematics: Affective, cognitive, and conative
domains of functioning. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st
annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 507–514).
Brisbane: MERGA. Retrieved December, 2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED503747.pdf
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E., II. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16–21.
Thompson, A. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics
teaching to mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–112.
Thompson, A. (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).
Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
Townsend, M., & Wilton, K. (2003). Evaluating change in attitude towards mathematics using the
“then-now” procedure in a cooperative learning programme. The British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(4), 473–487.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics
education: The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tuohilampi, L. (2017). Developing an analyzing tool for dynamic mathematics-related student
interaction regarding affect, cognition, and participation. In C. Andrá, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson,
& P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in maths classrooms (pp. 207–215). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing
students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 51, 1195–1226.
324 References

Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative

investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 275–314.
Valentiner, T. (1930). Non-intellectual influences in intelligence testing. Industrielle
Psychotechnik, 7, 198–208.
Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Linking students’ emotions and academic
achievement: When and why emotions matter. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 129–135.
Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics
education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 54, 9–35.
van der Stel, M., Veenman, M., Deelen, K., & Haenen, J. (2010). The increasing role of
metacognitive skills in math: A cross-sectional study from developmental perspective. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 42, 219–229.
Van Dooren, W., Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Bock, D. (2006). Modelling for life: Developing
adaptive expertise in mathematical modelling from an early age. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy,
M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends
(pp. 91–112). Oxford: Elsevier.
Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared- regulation and
motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia: An International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient, 46(1), 19–37.
Veenhoven, R. (2011). Greater happiness for a great number: Is that possible? If so, how? In K. M.
Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock
and moving forward (pp. 396–409). New York: Oxford University Press.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-
method designs. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition.
Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Waxmann: Münster.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A
discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211.
Veenman, M. V. J., Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and
learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1),
3–14.
Verner, I., Massarwe, K., & Bshouty, D. (2013). Constructs of engagement emerging in an
ethnomathematically-based teacher education course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32
(3), 494–507.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical
modelling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4, 273–294.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2002). Everyday knowledge and mathematical modeling
of school word problems. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),
Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Van Dooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2009). Words and
worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Vig, R., Star, J. R., Dupuis, D. N., Lein, A. E., & Jitendra, A. K. (2015). Exploring the impact of
knowledge of multiple strategies on students’ learning about proportions. In J. A. Middleton,
J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 61–74). London:
Springer.
Vinner, S. (2007). Mathematics education: Procedures, rituals and man’s search for meaning. The
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 1–10.
Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. In Learning
mathematics (pp. 171–194). Dordrecht: Springer.
Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iisjala, T. (2013). Metacognitive regulation in collaborative
learning: Conceptual developments and methodological contextualization’s. In S. Volet &
M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological
advances (New perspectives on learning and instruction) (pp. 67–101). New York: Routledge.
Taylor & Francis Group.
References 325

Vorhölter, K. (2017). Measuring metacognitive modeling competencies. In G. Stillman, W. Blum,

& G. Kaiser (Eds.), Mathematical modeling and applications: Crossing and researching
boundaries in mathematics education (pp. 175–185). Springer.
Vorhölter, K. (2018). Conceptualization and measuring of metacognitive modeling competencies –
empirical verification of theoretical assumptions. ZDM – The International Journal on Math-
ematics Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0909-x.
Vorhölter, K., & Kaiser, G. (2016). Theoretical and pedagogical considerations in promoting
students’ metacognitive modeling competencies. In C. Hirsch (Ed.), Annual perspectives in
mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics
(pp. 273–280). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
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 (pp. 21–36). Cham: Springer.
Vorhölter, K., Krüger, A., & Wendt, L. (2019). Metacognition in mathematical modeling – An
overview. In [to be completed].
VV. AA. (2016). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in mathematical modeling education.
Philadelphia. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.siam.org/reports/gaimme.php
Warner, L. B., & Schorr, R. Y. (2019). Exploring the connection between engagement structures
and the development of mathematical ideas. In [to be completed].
Warner, L. B., Schorr, R.Y., & Goldin, G. A. (2018). Analyzing prospective teachers’ motivating
desires during mathematical problem solving. In L. Gomez Chovam, A. Lopez Martino, &
I. Candel Torres (Ed.), ICERI2018 Proceedings (pp. 10436–10441). IATED Academy. ISBN
978-84-09-05948-5.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4),
678–691.
Webel, C. (2013). High school students’ goals for working together in mathematics class: Medi-
ating the practical rationality of studenting. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(1), 24–57.
Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development
of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-
assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433–455.
Whitson, C., & Consoli, J. (2009). Flow theory and student engagement. Journal of Cross-
Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 40–49.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Mathematizing verbal descriptions of situations: A language to support
modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 207–264.
Zan, R. (2011). The crucial role of narrative thought in understanding story problems. In
K. Kislenko (Ed.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVI (pp. 287–305).
Tallinn: Estonia.
Zan, R., Brown, L., Evans, J., & Hannula, M. (Eds.). (2006). Educational. Studies in Mathematics,
63(2), 113–121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472115.
Zbiek, R., & Conner, A. (2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modelling as a
context for deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Education Studies
in Mathematics, 63, 89–112.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and
academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 273–292). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Index
A 126, 132–137, 151, 160–162, 167, 169,
Ability, 24, 38, 59, 71, 75, 81, 109, 115, 117,
121, 122, 153, 161, 213, 235, 236, 238,
263, 275, 277, 281, 294, 300
Abstract, 136, 137, 221, 227, 230–232
Abstraction, 132, 135, 136, 227, 230
Achievement, 17, 19, 45, 101, 109, 114, 118,
124, 159, 160, 162, 167, 172, 173, 215
Activity, 3, 16, 53, 68, 113, 132, 162, 178, 212,
236, 259, 274, 297
Aesthetic, 119, 168, 293
Affect, 3, 15, 68, 112, 131, 165, 198, 211, 236,
258, 297
Affective, 7, 8, 16–19, 24, 67, 68, 83, 90, 91,
95, 99–101, 103, 107, 112–115, 117,
119–122, 124, 126, 132, 135, 149, 154,
160–162, 164–167, 170–173, 178, 203,
205, 208–211, 216, 222, 225, 229, 231,
232, 237, 298–300
Agency, 92–95
Algebra, 93, 164, 167, 169
Analogies, 101, 104, 108, 109, 121, 133,
136–142, 148, 150, 153, 166, 170
Analyses, 172, 173, 178, 181, 182, 198,
204–208, 219–221, 223–225, 227, 238,
246, 248, 249, 261, 262, 266, 269, 279,
283, 289–294
ANOVA, 246–248
Anxiety, 7, 16–19, 94, 100, 114, 126, 165, 238,
249, 275, 298, 300
Apathy, 7, 8, 259, 263
Approaches, 5, 10–12, 18, 33, 34, 36–39, 41,
59, 60, 63, 75, 76, 79, 80, 114, 120, 123,
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in
Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9
172–174, 178, 208, 213, 220, 221, 223,
225, 232, 236, 241, 243, 250, 259, 264,
279, 280, 290, 297
Aspirations, 18, 118, 159, 166
Assess, 17, 18, 21, 39, 60, 61, 163, 173, 222,
230, 250, 262, 269
Assessments, 92, 93, 95, 99, 106, 161, 166,
167, 189, 190, 204, 208, 209, 215, 222,
223, 227, 258–271
Attitudes, 7, 8, 16–20, 23, 24, 40, 46, 68, 114,
117, 120, 126, 133, 203–206, 209,
211–213, 216, 219–223, 225, 230–232,
235–252, 258, 298, 299
Autonomy, 115, 125, 172, 293
Autotelic, 263, 274
B
Behaviors, 16, 38–40, 43, 53–55, 59, 60, 68, 76,
91, 93, 100, 113, 114, 118, 120–122,
125, 126, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172,
173, 178, 237, 273, 274, 279, 281, 289,
293, 298, 299
Beliefs, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 68, 91, 93,
94, 99, 101, 104, 106–108, 114, 115,
117, 120, 126, 131–154, 160, 168, 209,
223–226, 229, 236, 258, 259, 282,
298–300
Binet, A., 16, 17, 24
Boredom, 114, 238, 258, 259, 263, 275, 277
Boring, 206, 243, 248, 250
Bruner, J., 220
327
328
C Construct, 8–10, 15–26, 68, 72, 73, 78, 79, 102,
Calculus, 91, 160, 297
Challenges, 6, 8, 9, 11, 56, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69,
92, 93, 95, 108, 118, 119, 121, 132, 136,
168, 172, 178, 204–210, 213, 215, 216,
238, 239, 244, 248, 250–252, 258–271,
274–278, 292–294, 298
Challenging, 8, 24, 25, 38, 45, 53, 68, 102, 109,
162, 164, 206, 211, 213, 237, 247, 249,
250, 259, 263, 264, 270, 292, 293
Classrooms, 4–7, 9–11, 21, 43, 46, 58, 62, 63,
68, 70–79, 81–83, 90, 92, 94–96, 100,
105, 106, 109, 112, 113, 116, 120, 121,
124, 125, 131, 132, 134, 139–148, 151,
152, 163–167, 169, 172–174, 198, 221,
222, 230–232, 236, 237, 242, 250, 258,
263, 270, 275, 277, 278, 281, 298–300
Cognition, 3–12, 15–17, 19, 23–25, 32, 54, 58,
93, 108, 112–117, 121, 125–127, 132,
134, 153, 165, 168, 173, 298–300
Cognitive, 7–9, 12, 16, 29–32, 34, 37, 40–42,
44, 54–57, 60, 61, 67, 90, 91, 94, 95,
99–101, 103, 107, 112–115, 117, 119,
121, 122, 124, 126, 132–135, 137, 139,
149, 153, 154, 164–168, 170, 171, 173,
178, 204, 208, 209, 232, 238, 266, 275,
279, 299, 300
Collaboration, 262, 265
Commognitive, 12, 102, 109, 178, 181
Communication, 8–10, 25, 109, 119, 127, 132,
179, 262, 282
Complex, 5, 11, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 45,
53–59, 61–63, 68–70, 83, 93, 108,
113–115, 120, 121, 123, 124, 132,
136, 138, 149, 165, 170, 178, 204, 207,
211, 212, 221, 226, 230–232, 236,
258, 273
Conation, 92, 93, 100, 108, 112–118,
124–126
Conative, 92, 100, 101, 105, 106, 111–127
Concept, 3, 4, 6–12, 16, 18, 21, 22, 30–33, 39,
46, 47, 56, 75, 90, 94, 100, 101, 118,
122, 133–136, 139, 152, 154, 163, 169,
173, 206, 221, 223, 236, 241, 251, 259,
260, 263, 264, 266, 270
Conception, 18–21, 39, 152, 164, 166, 209,
224, 225, 230, 232, 298
Conceptualizations, 3, 11, 20, 30, 31, 46, 48,
54, 68, 165, 262–264, 270
Conclusion, 15, 73, 76, 133, 153, 213, 229,
248
Concrete, 31, 138, 139, 221, 225, 230–232
Confidence, 75, 237, 258
Conjectures, 94, 115, 143, 154, 171
Consistency, 241, 266
Index
112, 114, 115, 124, 135, 139, 154, 179,
211–213, 215, 219, 220, 223, 227, 237,
238, 258, 275, 298
Contextualize, 154, 212
Contextualization, 152, 227, 237
Create, 15–17, 21, 22, 25, 33, 39, 61, 63, 71, 72,
76, 79, 83, 125, 154, 169, 216, 236, 238,
250, 262, 269, 280, 286, 290, 291
Creating, 17, 21–25, 57, 72, 153, 197, 215, 251,
262, 287, 290, 300
Creativity, 94, 118, 140, 154, 162, 249, 259
Cronbach, 244, 246, 247, 265, 266
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 69, 163, 263, 264
Curiosity, 117, 119, 125, 165, 244, 252, 259
D
Descriptive statistics, 246
Design, 22, 32, 47, 48, 53, 56–58, 60–63, 96,
132, 168, 180, 206, 207, 213, 214, 216,
242, 259, 265, 288, 289, 291, 294
Development, 9, 11, 30, 41, 44, 54–57, 60, 63,
68, 70, 83, 90, 95, 100, 106, 109, 119,
121, 125, 126, 131, 133, 134, 138, 140,
142, 149, 160, 162, 165, 167, 173, 178,
180, 197, 204–206, 209, 210, 220,
222–224, 228, 232, 292, 298, 299
Dimension, 12, 37, 67, 68, 73, 76, 78, 79, 92,
95, 100, 101, 113, 115, 117, 123, 124,
126, 127, 132, 133, 141, 151, 154, 162,
172–174, 220, 221, 223, 231, 283, 285,
292, 298
Discourse, 100, 106, 179, 182, 185, 193, 197
Discussion, 4–7, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 29, 38,
45–47, 59, 68, 77, 103, 106, 109,
112–114, 143, 160, 161, 169, 185, 187,
189–191, 193–195, 197, 206, 207, 214,
228, 261, 266, 269, 285, 286, 288, 291
Dispositions, 3, 7, 8, 16, 17, 24, 25, 91, 93, 99,
161, 169, 220, 223, 225, 231, 282, 297,
300
Domain, 17–19, 38, 46, 91, 92, 100, 102, 113,
114, 166, 169, 208–210, 237, 298
Dynamic, 9, 70, 113, 115, 120, 164, 173, 213,
214, 258, 275, 276, 293
E
Education, 3, 5, 9–12, 16, 18–20, 40, 90, 101,
102, 108, 109, 112, 113, 118, 119, 125,
132, 134, 137, 160, 161, 163, 167, 168,
180, 194, 204, 205, 208–211, 219, 222,
227, 231, 232, 236, 258–264, 269–271,
274, 281, 298, 299
Index
Educational psychology, 20, 24, 133, 134, 137
Elaboration, 12, 41, 152, 197
Elucidate, 23
Emotions, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19–21, 23–25, 75, 79,
100, 102, 114–116, 120–122, 125, 132,
135, 139–141, 148–150, 153, 162, 165,
168–170, 212, 215, 220, 223, 231, 237,
241, 258, 263, 298, 299
Empirical, 3, 6, 8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 30, 40,
45, 46, 55, 108, 113, 114, 132, 134, 136,
152, 204, 208
Engage, 7, 24, 54, 56–61, 63, 69, 90, 92, 95,
111, 117, 124, 165, 170, 180, 213, 251,
262, 270, 271, 275, 282, 300
Engineering, 21, 22, 204, 206, 214–216,
258–271
Epistemic, 104, 105, 108, 132–151, 153
Epistemology, 93, 94, 101–103, 106, 108,
132–135, 139–141, 143, 150, 151, 153,
154
Evaluate, 38, 44, 47, 54, 58, 60, 62, 167, 168,
170, 171, 269, 299
Expectancy-value, 115
Experience, 7, 9, 31, 54, 56, 58, 59, 68–70,
72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 100, 102–104, 106,
113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122,
124–126, 132, 135, 141, 150, 152,
159–174, 178, 180, 185, 187, 190,
198, 205–207, 209, 211, 214–216,
219, 220, 222, 236, 238, 239, 242, 244,
248–250, 258–260, 262–264, 266,
269–271, 274, 275, 278–280, 283,
291, 293, 299, 300
Externalization, 62
Externalize, 60, 61
Extrinsic, 69, 113–115, 121, 123, 125
F 241, 243, 244, 246, 248, 250
Feelings, 7, 8, 16, 17, 24, 25, 101, 104, 105,
109, 113–115, 117, 164, 165, 169, 170,
230, 236, 237, 244, 246, 248–250, 253,
298, 299
Flavell, J.H., 10, 31
Flow, 100, 121, 163, 165, 168, 169, 205–208,
211–216, 237–239, 244–251, 263–266,
268–271, 275–278, 281, 283, 292–294,
298
Formula, 36, 109, 118, 247, 259, 265, 269, 270
Frustrations, 104, 114, 117, 122, 162, 164,
165, 168, 206, 214, 238, 275, 277, 286,
298
Function, 22, 32, 60, 113, 141, 144–147, 207,
251, 253, 262, 270, 297
329
G
Generalization, 104
Goal, 31, 34, 36, 37, 40, 55, 56, 62, 63, 70, 75,
91, 93–95, 100, 102, 109, 113–117, 119,
120, 122–125, 153, 160–162, 167, 180,
205, 215, 220, 222, 223, 230, 232, 238,
250, 260, 298
Goldin, G.A., 111–127, 160, 164, 168, 169,
172, 300
Graph, 144–146
H
Happiness, 80, 94, 95, 102, 106, 108, 109,
160–163, 168–174, 263, 270, 298, 300
High-ceiling, 213, 215, 264, 270
Hypothesis, 18, 62
Hypothesize, 63, 75, 76, 248
I
Identity, 92, 93, 95, 96, 100, 102, 103, 106, 108,
109, 117, 119, 169, 178, 179, 182, 198
Ill-defined, 17, 56, 57
Implement, 45, 208, 262
Inquiry, 19, 131, 132, 139, 140, 150, 168, 261,
263, 271
Instrument, 6, 17, 38, 136, 138, 205, 244, 265
Interest, 16, 18, 25, 29, 68, 69, 90, 95, 103, 104,
106, 113, 132, 143, 159, 162, 163, 171,
211, 215, 220, 229, 237, 238, 244, 248,
263, 264, 297, 298
Interpret, 8, 16, 21, 23, 59, 118, 223, 279, 280
Interpretation, 7, 18, 21, 41, 56, 57, 59, 165,
167, 206, 225, 229, 230, 279
Interview, 38–40, 48, 62, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77–83,
140–142, 151, 181, 182, 194, 195, 207
Intra-mathematical problems, 205, 237, 239,
Intrinsic, 69, 113–115, 121, 123, 160, 212, 215,
216, 250, 264
J
Joy, 114, 117, 121, 162, 165, 168
K
Knowledge, 4, 24, 29–33, 35–41, 43–46, 55,
57, 59, 63, 69, 70, 83, 90, 91, 93, 94,
101, 114, 115, 122, 126, 131–136, 139,
141, 142, 148, 150–154, 213–215,
224–227, 231, 235, 278, 280, 282, 293,
294, 299
330
L Model, 6, 15, 33, 57, 90, 112, 132, 169, 178,
Learning, 11, 16, 19–21, 30–32, 40, 41, 44, 45,
47, 48, 54, 61, 63, 67, 89, 92–96, 99, 100,
102–104, 106–109, 112, 113, 118–120,
123, 126, 132–135, 137, 139, 140, 148,
149, 151–153, 159–164, 166–170,
172–174, 179, 197, 198, 203, 204, 208,
209, 213, 215, 216, 222, 226, 230, 236,
237, 247, 250, 251, 262, 298, 299
Lesh, P.L., 6
Lesh, R., 16, 21, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 70, 99, 178,
180, 227, 232
Literature, 15–17, 19, 20, 23, 57, 93, 108, 112,
114, 116, 126, 135, 170, 171, 204, 212,
216, 219, 223, 227, 265, 269
Locus of control, 18, 25
Low floor, 213, 215, 264, 270
M
Mathematical, 3, 15, 29, 53, 91, 112, 131, 160,
178, 221, 259, 278, 298
Mathematical modelling, 3–12, 132, 135, 136,
141, 203–206, 208–212, 215, 216, 236,
237, 239, 241, 242, 244, 251, 279, 282
Mathematical problem solving, 16, 18, 68, 91,
104, 121, 228, 236
Mathematical psychology, 16–18, 20, 23, 25
Mathematics, 3, 15, 33, 55, 90, 111, 131, 159,
178, 219, 258, 274, 297
Mathematics education, 16, 18–20, 40, 90, 100,
101, 108, 109, 112, 113, 118, 125, 132,
137, 161, 163, 168, 180, 208, 209, 211,
219, 227, 231, 232, 236, 258–260, 262,
269, 270, 274, 298, 299
Mathematize, 21, 96, 105, 178, 266, 270, 280
McLeod, D.B., 16, 18–20, 99, 114, 236, 297,
299
Meaningful, 63, 102, 106, 112, 122, 125, 152,
162–167, 170, 171, 174, 178, 205, 212,
214, 227, 259, 278, 300
Meaningfulness, 102, 162, 163, 166, 167,
169–174, 263
Meta-affect, 20, 104, 114, 117, 120, 168–171,
174
Meta-affective, 168
Metacognition, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40–47, 53,
54, 57–60, 134
Meta-conative, 117
Method, 30, 38–40, 44, 46, 61, 91, 102, 104,
116, 139, 142, 151, 152, 172, 204, 206,
237, 243, 250, 258, 259, 281
Misconceptions, 24, 38, 41
Index
220, 259, 279, 298
Model-eliciting activity (MEA), 57, 60–62,
102, 103, 105–109, 178, 197
Modeling/modelling, 3–11, 21, 33, 35, 47, 94,
108, 131–133, 136, 139, 140, 142, 148,
150, 152, 153, 178, 180, 182–184,
196–198, 203–209, 212–216, 222, 236,
237, 239–251, 265, 268, 274, 278, 279,
281–283, 287, 289–291, 293, 298
Modifying, 56, 140–142, 197
Monitor, 37
Motivation, 100, 113, 250
N
National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical
Abilities (NLSMA), 17
NCTM, 222
O
Objective, 139
Ontology, 141, 151–153
Open-ended, 55, 57, 244, 261, 262, 264
Organizing, 8, 113, 178, 197, 262
Ownership, 92–95, 207, 261, 269
P
Participants, 58, 59, 105, 109, 173, 178–185,
187–198, 242, 244, 251, 252, 260, 265,
266
PBL, 237
Pedagogies, 96, 107
Persevere, 95, 300
Perspectives, 4–6, 8–11, 18, 21, 29, 30, 32, 46,
48, 54, 59, 60, 67–83, 92, 94, 100, 101,
103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111–127,
131–135, 154, 178, 179, 181, 210, 212,
220, 247, 262, 270, 279, 280, 291
Philosophy, 4, 9, 161
Piaget, J., 229
Pleasure, 94, 102, 104, 118, 162, 163, 168–174,
300
Polya, G., 108, 137, 138
Principles, 6, 11, 26, 53–63, 114, 118, 137, 180,
208, 224
Problem solving, 16, 18, 19, 21, 30, 55, 60, 63,
68–72, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 91, 93, 99,
104, 108, 116, 117, 121, 125, 135, 136,
138, 149, 205, 224, 228, 231, 236, 245,
249, 251, 252, 273, 278, 282, 298
Index
Problem statements, 34, 61, 91, 140
Procedures, 37, 61, 71, 94, 136, 137, 139, 179,
181, 182, 185–187, 189–196, 206, 223,
239, 241, 262
Process, 16, 29, 69, 101, 112, 131, 178, 221,
260, 275, 299
Proofs, 90, 93, 94, 152, 154, 227, 262, 299, 300
Psychology, 3, 9, 16–20, 23–25, 109, 112, 113,
133, 134, 137, 205, 208, 263, 298, 299
Pythagorean theorem, 243, 244, 251, 254
Q 94, 101, 108, 116, 122, 136, 137, 146,
Questionnaires, 38–40, 47, 204, 205, 207, 213,
215, 225, 243–250, 265, 266, 268–270
Questions, 5, 6, 8, 10–12, 17, 20, 30, 36, 37, 39,
46–48, 54, 58, 60–63, 68, 70, 75, 77, 78,
81–83, 90, 92, 95, 104–106, 108, 109,
112, 113, 116, 118, 132, 136, 141,
144–147, 150, 152–154, 161, 162, 165,
172, 173, 180, 187, 191, 194, 212, 213,
222, 224, 228–230, 232, 241, 242, 244,
246, 248, 249, 253, 262, 265, 266,
268–270, 273, 281, 283
R 259, 279, 298
Reasoning, 58, 106, 108, 117, 121, 132, 133,
135–142, 148–150, 152–154, 161, 223,
279
Reconceptualize, 164
Regulation, 9, 10, 30–32, 37, 59, 117
Reliability, 246, 247, 266
Representations, 39, 57, 121, 136, 144, 152,
207, 212, 239, 275, 277, 279, 280, 284,
285, 287, 289, 290
Research, 4, 15, 29, 68, 99, 112, 132, 159, 180,
225, 258, 281, 298
Results, 4, 7, 9–11, 19–21, 30, 32, 37, 40, 42,
44–46, 55, 56, 59, 68, 70, 79, 82, 91, 92,
95, 104–106, 108, 115, 119, 126, 133,
135, 138, 141, 145, 147, 153, 154, 168,
184, 207, 213, 225, 227, 229, 236, 237,
239, 241–243, 246–251, 264–266, 269,
270, 277, 280, 283, 299, 300
Revising, 57
Routines, 55, 95, 102, 106, 108, 142, 153,
178–198, 249, 262, 293
S 179, 183, 214, 224, 236, 251, 260, 265,
School Mathematics Study Group
(SMSG), 17
331
Schukajlow, S., 3, 39, 41, 44, 45, 237, 239–242,
248, 250
Self-determination, 115, 125
Self-efficacy, 18, 114, 117, 126, 160, 162, 237,
248
Self-esteem, 18, 259
Self-regulation, 20, 24, 30, 114, 139, 165
Simon, T., 16, 17, 24
Sociocultural, 4, 8–10, 54, 58, 125
Sociomathematical, 165, 167
Solutions, 5–7, 32–39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 56,
57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 74, 75, 77, 80–82,
147, 165, 167, 178, 181, 189, 190, 197,
213–215, 232, 239, 241, 243, 246, 247,
278–280, 282, 288–291, 293, 294, 300
Spontaneous, 43, 53–63, 73, 132
Standardized, 55, 71, 159
Strategies, 6, 10, 31–48, 56, 59, 60, 68, 73, 83,
114, 117, 122, 135, 139, 153, 165, 174,
227, 260, 292
Stresses, 104, 109, 112, 221, 258, 259
Student, 17, 30, 67, 99, 111, 131, 159, 182, 219,
258, 281
Student-centered, 205, 237, 241–243, 250
Study, 19, 30, 71, 100, 112, 132, 160, 178, 220,
Subjectifying, 96, 179, 180, 182, 191, 194,
196–198
T
Talented, 251, 264
Taxonomies, 31, 38, 90, 94, 114
Teacher, 4, 20, 40, 69, 101, 116, 132, 164, 180,
220, 258, 275, 298
Teacher-centered, 205, 237, 241–243, 247, 250
Teaching, 20, 41, 77, 100, 126, 131, 159, 181,
222, 298
Tetrahedral model, 20, 21
Theoretical, 3, 4, 6, 9–11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25,
30, 39, 46, 47, 54, 67–83, 106, 113, 133,
137, 152, 154, 204, 205, 207, 208, 223,
260, 274
Theory, 4, 16, 47, 106, 112, 134, 165, 237, 265,
275, 299
Thinking, 3, 6, 9, 10, 24, 30, 32, 38, 54, 55,
57–63, 68, 70, 76, 79–81, 83, 89, 91, 92,
94, 101, 103, 105–108, 118, 119, 127,
131–133, 137, 152, 154, 161, 163, 165,
268, 275, 279
Traits, 100, 104, 114, 116, 119–121, 126
332 Index

U 164, 166, 167, 169–171, 183, 186,

Understandings, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17–19, 21, 26,
31, 33, 36, 44–47, 56–58, 61, 62, 68, 70,
73, 75, 79, 83, 91–93, 100, 105, 106,
108, 109, 117–119, 121, 124, 127, 134,
136, 137, 140, 161, 165, 167, 168, 204,
206, 213, 221, 224, 230, 232, 236, 239,
259, 264, 266, 278, 279, 291, 298
191–195, 197, 232, 237, 238, 247, 258,
298
Variables, 20, 22, 31, 37, 56, 57, 113, 120, 160,
161, 165–167, 169, 170, 173, 184, 191,
237, 248, 299
Vygotsky, 9, 10

W
V Word problems, 109, 205, 212, 213, 226–229,
Values, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 34–37, 41, 231, 232, 237, 239–241, 243–245,
43, 57, 58, 75, 91, 93, 113–116, 120, 247–250
123–125, 135, 143, 144, 147, 153, 162,