Articulo 8-1

sustainability
Article
Proposal of a Mathematical Modelling Activity to Facilitate
Students’ Learning of Ordinary Differential Equation Concepts
Esperanza Lozada 1 , Carolina Guerrero-Ortiz 2 , Aníbal Coronel 3, * and Rigoberto Medina 4
1 Doctorado en Educación Matemática de la Universidad de Los Lagos, Universidad de Los Lagos,

Osorno 5290000, Chile; elozada@ubiobio.cl
2 Instituto de Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Blanco Viel 596, Cerro Baron,
Valparaíso 2340000, Chile; c_cguerrero@yahoo.com.mx
3 Departamento de Ciencias Básicas-Centro de Ciencias Exactas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad del Bío-Bío,
Campus Fernando May, Andrés Bello 720, Chillán 3780000, Chile
4 Departamento de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno 5290000, Chile; rmedina@ulagos.cl
* Correspondence: acoronel@ubiobio.cl; Tel.: +56-42-2463259
Abstract: We present results that come from analysing students’ processes of solving tasks designed
particularly for the learning of differential equations in a situational context. A teaching sequence
was implemented during a semester-long course that comprised several tasks to cover the content
of the course. Following a qualitative analysis, we show how a contextualised task can favour the
construction of meanings associated with differential equations and how the interpretation of the
terms present in those equations is developed. We also highlight some difficulties that may arise in
students’ interpretations when the task involves meanings from other disciplines.
Keywords: teaching differential equations; mathematical modelling; model-eliciting activities; free

fall problem
Citation: Lozada, E.; Guerrero-Ortiz,

C.; Coronel, A.; Medina, R. Proposal 1. Introduction
of a Mathematical Modelling Activity
In previous decades, there has been valuable and extended acceptance of ordinary
to Facilitate Students’ Learning of
Ordinary Differential Equation
differential equations as an important part of the undergraduate curriculum in several
Concepts. Sustainability 2023, 15,
careers, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [1]. The incorporation
12483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ of this topic in undergraduate formation has been recognized by several scientists who have
su151612483 justified their support from different points of view: the inclusion of differential equations
enables the resolution of contextualised problems involving concepts of physics, chemistry,
Academic Editors: Maxim A.
geometry, and biology, among other sciences [2]; differential equations are natural mathe-
Dulebenets, Matteo Sacchet, Marina
matical tools used to describe phenomena that include variation and, therefore, they allow
Marchisio and Alice Barana
the modelling and solving of problems from very diverse contexts [3]; and the study of
Received: 16 May 2023 differential equations provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the application of
Revised: 28 July 2023 mathematics to real life and to engage students in the nature of contemporary research in
Accepted: 31 July 2023 mathematics [4]. Consequently, the relevant role of this branch of mathematics in university
Published: 17 August 2023 education has aroused the interest of researchers in the area of mathematics education, who
are particularly focused on enhancing the curricular content, including recommendations
for its implementation and its teaching in the classroom [5–10].
On the other hand, mathematical modelling has become one of the more relevant
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
systemic approaches to solving mathematical problems and has also been extensively used
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in many different research projects arising in diverse fields [11]. It is well-known that the
This article is an open access article
use of mathematical models as predictor tools in different areas of science has intensified in
distributed under the terms and
recent decades, this being one of the reasons why mathematical modelling has emerged
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
as one of the fastest-growing areas in mathematics [12,13]. For instance, during the recent
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
global spread of the COVID-19 epidemic, mathematical modelling played an essential
4.0/). role in the simulation of behaviour, providing, in this way, an invaluable tool for making
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612483 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12483 2 of 22
decisions [14–16]. Particularly in relation to sustainability, differential equations are used

as mathematical models in different areas, like the sustainable management of marine re-
sources [17], the study of the sustainability of an urban system in the presence of haphazard
development activities that affect the urban population [18], and the development of zero-
carbon electric power systems [19]. The increased attention being paid to mathematical
modelling is also a factor that has attracted the attention of researchers in mathematical
education. Consequently, researchers and educators have supported the development
of mathematical modelling skills in the training of students from elementary to higher
education levels [20–27]. Based on their experience of teaching mathematical modelling,
the researchers have reported several advantages of this approach for developing math-
ematical knowledge and improving mathematical teaching practices [28]. In this paper,
mathematical modelling is conceived in two ways. The first considers mathematical mod-
elling as the simplification of real-world phenomena to be solved using mathematics. In the
second method, modelling is considered a didactic methodology that uses contextualised
examples arising from validated mathematical models. In this approach, mathematical
modelling also looks to motivate students by solving real-world or life problems [29]. An
extensive discussion of the concepts related to mathematical modelling is developed in [29]
(see also [24,30–33]).
There are several challenges in the teaching of differential equations to undergraduate
students, among which at least two of the chief ones are the learning of concepts and
the development of mathematical modelling skills [34]. Related to the first claim, one
of the initial observations issued by mathematics education researchers is the fact that
the way that differential equations have been taught does not favour the development
of conceptual learning and applications of such concepts. This is due to the fact that tra-
ditional ordinary differential equations courses are centred on the teaching of algebraic
solutions and algorithmic techniques, and they discard or give a very low importance to
conceptual understanding. In order to overcome the limitations of traditional teaching,
several proposals using contemporary didactic approaches have been considered: qualita-
tive and numerical approaches, active learning methodologies, mathematical modelling
methodologies, information and communication technology based methodologies, project-
based learning, and other methodologies (see [34] and the references therein). In the case
of mathematical modelling, four groups have been distinguished: the development of
skills for mathematical modelling [32,35–43]; modelling as a pedagogical strategy to teach
concepts of ordinary differential equations [33,36,44–46]; language games, representations,
and relations of mathematics with other sciences [47–51]; and modelling activities using or-
dinary differential equations to teach other concepts [52–58]. As we can see, there are many
approaches to the practice of modelling in education, and we can find several definitions
and ways to represent the process of modelling.
In this paper, we study how model-eliciting activities can support students in th
construction of their own concepts related to first-order ordinary differential equations.
Thus, more specifically, our aim is
to characterise the conceptual learning of first-order differential equations developed by
students when they solve a task based on a model-eliciting activity approach.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the concepts related to
mathematical modelling. In particular, we consider the model-eliciting activity approach.
In Section 3, we survey some results on the teaching and learning of ordinary differential
equations. In Section 4, we present the methodological aspects of the research. Moreover,
in Sections 5–7, the data analyses, a discussion of the findings, and the conclusions of the
work are respectively presented.
2. Mathematical Modelling
In recent years, mathematical modelling in the context of mathematical education has
generated the interest of several researchers who have explored new ways of teaching in
different disciplines [25,27]. Particularly, a well-documented discussion on the role of mod-

elling in education was developed by [25] (see also [59,60] for a systematic presentation).
In spite of the significant progress attained on the topic, in the current literature,
a unified definition of mathematical modelling is lacking. In [61], the author defines
mathematical modelling as a learning environment in which students inquire about and/or
investigate through mathematics some situations that arise in other areas of reality. In [62],
Blomhøj states that mathematical modelling constitutes a teaching practice that focuses
the teaching and learning process regarding the relationship between the real world and
mathematics. The authors of [27] define mathematical modelling as an interactive process
that involves open–closed problems, real-world problems, and practical problems that
make sense and allow the student to use affirmations, approximations, and multiple
representations. In the opinion of Lesh & Doerr [11], modelling in mathematics education
supports meaningful learning and helps the student to establish relationships between their
academic training and real life. Thus, from the different interpretations of mathematical
modelling, we have the outstanding characteristic that it plays a relevant role in developing
skills or competencies that allow the student to relate the world of mathematics to the
real world.
In this paper, we consider the notions introduced by Lesh & Doerr [11], where mathe-
matical modelling is contextualised as a didactic approach based on activities or model-
eliciting activities (MEAs) that are guided by the following principles:
(1) The reality principle. This is sometimes called the “personal meaningfulness principle’.
It highlights that the chosen situation for the activity must seem meaningful to the
students, and it must also be connected with their previous experiences or knowledge.
Some questions used to guide the construction of activities satisfying this principle
are the following: Could the activity really happen in some real-life situations? Is the
activity constructed to encourage the student to make sense of the situation with their
own personal knowledge and experience? Is the activity such that it recognizes the
ideas of the students, or are they compelled to accept the notions of the teacher as the
unique and correct way to approach the situation?
(2) The model construction principle. The activity should create the need for students to
develop their own mathematical constructs, which should also be meaningful. It is
related to the following questions: Does the activity ensure that students recognise the
requirements of model construction, modification, extension, or refinement? Does the
activity involve the construction, description, explanation, manipulation, prediction,
or control of a system? Does it pay attention to patterns and regularity constructions
rather than skin-deep information?
(3) The self-evaluation principle. The situation must be such that it allows the students to
evaluate their progress in the development of the activities and the interpretation of
the models. The prototypical questions used to test this principle are as follows: Is the
activity clear in the sense that the criteria for assessing the usefulness of alternative
responses and tasks are known and clear to students? Are some parameters consid-
ered in the activities used to direct the students to judge for themselves when their
responses are good enough? What are the objectives and purposes of the results?
(4) The model documentation principle. This is also called the “model-externalisation princi-
ple” or the “model abstraction documentation principle”. It is related to the charac-
teristics of activities, where the context must be such that the students express their
thoughts and opinions while they develop the tasks. The activity should allow the
students to leave documented records of their development. It can be validated by
the following question: Is the activity constructed to require that the responses of
students give explicit declarations of their thinking about the situation (given goals,
possible solution paths) and which kind of knowledge (mathematical objects, relations,
operations, patterns, and regularities) is used in their reports?
(5) The simple prototype principle. The selected situation for the activity must be simple to
meet the needs of the students’ current knowledge. The questions that address this
principle are the following: Is the activity formulated in terms of a set of tasks that are
as simple as possible? Does it promote the need for a significant model? Is the solution
a prototype for a variety of similar situations? Is the activity capable of producing an
experience that will help others make sense of similar situations?
(6) The model generalisation principle. The activity should be designed with the aim of
generating awareness that it is possible to generalize the model obtained or used in the
activity. The questions used to test this principle are the following: Are the conceptual
tools valid only for the particular situation or for a more general situation? Does the
activity represent a challenge to produce improved models?
In synthesis, the characteristics of this didactic approach are as follows: (a) students
begin with real-life situations presented in terms of modelling activities, which require more
time, thought, and concentration compared to traditional problems; (b) the activities should
be implemented in small groups in order to produce the necessary discussions; (c) the
activities require the students to clearly express their ways of thinking as well as clearly
define their conceptual strengths and weaknesses; (d) the development of activities requires
a space for presentations and discussions, which should be considered with the purpose of
clarifying the expression of their ways of thinking, promoting students’ awareness of the
ways of thinking of others, allowing them to see the strengths and weaknesses of different
approaches and create strategies to improve the work of others or their own work; and
(e) the teacher participates in the process as a guide and with the aim of understanding the
students’ ways of thinking, determining their strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating
their performances. Another important aspect is that not all problems have the same
context, content, and cognitive demand; in this sense, Chamberlin et al. [63] developed
a way to evaluate the problems using the characteristics of the MEAs. More specifically,
in [63], the authors used three taxonomies to evaluate the types of problems and suggested
that the MEAs complying with the six principles can be classified in terms of their context,
content, and cognitive demand.
In this research, we relied on the principles of MEAs to design the tasks that were
used in our teaching experiment of ordinary differential equations. This was implemented
in the classroom with the aim of determining the knowledge, skills, and creative capacity
that the students show when they become involved in the activities. In this sense, another
researcher [1] considered that procedural knowledge appears when the students use infor-
mation only as an application of some algebraic techniques, and conceptual knowledge
emerges when the students evaluate the information in depth. We focused on conceptual
knowledge. In addition, Arslan [1] presented a list of the characteristics of the questions
that measure conceptual and procedural knowledge. Consequently, to have elements that
make identification possible and, therefore, allow us to describe and understand, how
the learning of concepts and procedures is developed when students address MEAs, as a
starting point, we used a list of questions proposed by Arslan [1]. For instance, the author
of [1] established that a characteristic question measuring conceptual knowledge is the
following: “The task given in the question has not been discussed in the class”. Then, in
our MEAs we included a question related to a concept that is not taught in the class, to fix
ideas, the concept of the “ordinary differential equation”. Hence, we defined “to formulate
a notion of an ordinary differential equation” as a learning objective. Additionally, we
constructed a group of appropriate descriptors using the verbs of Bloom’s taxonomy for
the levels of understanding [64,65] (see Table 1).
Table 1. The learning objectives of the lecture constructed according to the Bloom taxonomy [64,65].
Learning Objectives Code

To identify the physical meaning of the coefficients of a first-order ordinary differ-
O1.T1-L1
ential equation originating from a concrete problem.
To confirm the mathematical meaning of the coefficients of a first-order ordinary
O2.T1-L1
differential equation originating from a concrete problem.
Table 1. Cont.
Learning Objectives Code

To detect the parameters or data in an ordinary differential equation. O3.T1-L1.
To determine the unknowns of an ordinary differential equation. O4.T1-L1
To construct the solution to an ordinary differential equation by applying
O5.T1-L1
integration.
To verify if a given function is a solution to an ordinary differential equation by
O6.T1-L1
using differentiation.
To compare the solutions to different mathematical models for the same real
O7.T1-L1
situation.
To formulate the notion of an ordinary differential equation. O8.T1-L1
To specify the notion of the solution to an ordinary differential equation. O9.T1-L1
3. Teaching and Learning of Ordinary Differential Equations

Research on the teaching and learning of differential equations has been an object of
study for several years. The review developed in [34] covers a wide spectrum of works
produced before 2021, and it does not include books, book collections, or conference
proceedings. We recognise that, after the survey, there are also some works that have
been developed within this topic, for instance [65–69]. It is also known that the teaching
and learning of ordinary differential equations have been influenced by the different
didactic approaches that are applied to the teaching and learning of mathematics, for
instance, information and communication technology-based methodologies and project-
based methodologies.
The traditional methodology for teaching ordinary differential equations is centred on
developing algebraic or analytic methods to obtain the analytic solutions given by explicit
or implicit expressions for the unknown function [8]. The main characteristics are the
following: algorithmic, procedural, symbolic, and particularly related to a specific type
of differential equation. More precisely, the traditional methodology used for teaching
first-order ordinary differential equations is developed in three steps by the educator:
(a) the introduction of the abstract forms of first-order ordinary differential equations, given
by the following two equivalent forms:
dy
= f ( x, y) or M ( x, y)dx + N ( x, y)dy = 0, (1)
dx
where f , M and N are given functions from D ⊂ R2 to R; (b) the classification of (1) as sepa-
rable, homogeneous, exact, linear, Bernoulli, and others, depending on the behaviour of the
functions f , M, N; and (c) teaching the students their own algorithmic solution technique
for each type of ordinary differential equation. These three steps ((a), (b) and (c)) of teaching
are also applied by educators of traditional methodology to higher-order ordinary differ-
ential equations and even to first-order systems of differential equations. To summarise,
the traditional approach to teaching differential equations consists of the use of a wide vari-
ety of algebraic or analytic methods for solving different types of problems [70]. Research
on traditional methodologies has been conducted by several researchers [1,4,23,70–79]. In
those works, the authors discuss different aspects of the traditional teaching of ordinary
differential equations, such as the development of algebraic abilities, students’ difficul-
ties in learning, the characteristics of traditional methods, characterisation of the main
disadvantages, and uses of different mathematical representations, among others. In a
broad sense, the authors agree that the traditional methodology has several disadvantages,
specifically that it develops concept learning passively; however, they recommend that
it should not be discarded entirely and should be used in combination with other active
learning methodologies, since algebraic manipulation or calculus abilities are required by

other methodologies [80–82].
Another two methodologies introduced for teaching ordinary differential equations are the
well-known qualitative and numerical approaches that were studied in [5,6,8,9,49,52,73,74,81,83–91].
The numerical and qualitative study of differential equations appears to overcome the
disadvantage that a wide class of differential equations is not solvable by analytic methods.
In practical implementations, both approaches demand the incorporation of new concepts,
like graphical solutions, direction fields, stability, increasing or decreasing behaviours of the
solution, the interpretation of situations based on the behaviours of solutions, numerical
schemes, numerical errors, and the order of approximation. However, the teaching of those
concepts can be achieved by using some graphical tools to avoid tedious algebraic calculus
and obtain an immediate visualisation of the solution. Thus, with the increasing incor-
poration of information and communication technologies in the teaching of mathematics,
qualitative and numerical methods are becoming more frequently used in the classroom,
and their potential characteristic is the approach to solutions of several types of ordinary
differential equations [74,92].
More recently, the methodologies researched in the context of teaching ordinary
differential equations are those based on well-known active learning methodo-
logies [3,10,57,73,81,82,85,87,89,93–119]. Here, active learning methods are understood
as student-centred teaching methodologies that provide students with the opportunity
to participate in mathematical research or problem-solving groups, where they construct
and share knowledge in communities while maintaining appropriate feedback on their
work from experts and peers. It is also known that there are several methodologies
that are grouped under the concept of active learning methodologies, and to be more
precise, there are works that cover several of the standard active methodologies, for in-
stance, inquiry-based instruction (see [10,85,89,101,102,105–111,117,118]), problem-based
learning (see [93,100]), problem-solving methodology (see [3,57,81,95,116]), analysis of
errors (see [94]), actions, processes, objects, schemas (APOS) theory (see [96]), and the
competences-based methodology (see [97]). In the other works, some specific learning
methodologies are developed. In this sense, the works of Raychaudhuri [112–115], where
the author presents innovative active learning methodologies to teach advanced topics
(for instance, existence and uniqueness theorems) associated with ordinary differential
equations deserve a special mention.
On the other hand, we know that the teaching of ordinary differential equations has
been influenced by mathematical modelling (see [32,33,35–56,58,83,120–127]), information
and communication technologies (see [42,44,48,49,53,70,81,100,120,122,123,125,126,128]),
and project-based learning (see [125,129–131]) approaches. The focus of those articles is
diverse. For instance, in the case of mathematical modelling, we found some articles where
the aim is to develop mathematical modelling abilities to solve real problem models by
the application of ordinary differential equations. Other articles are dedicated to the use
of mathematical modelling as a pedagogical strategy to teach some concepts of ordinary
differential equations, and other articles use mathematical modelling activities with some
ordinary differential equations to teach concepts of other sciences. Particularly in the
present research, we consider some activities based on mathematical modelling to teach
the basic concepts of first-order ordinary differential equations.
4. Methodology
4.1. Setting
The research was conducted on a course of “ordinary differential equations and
numerical calculus” for pedagogy mathematics education students at a Chilean university.
The students must take this course in the first semester of their fourth year. At the time
of the research, the majority of the students had completed courses in algebra, differential
and integral calculus, calculus of several variables, geometry, mathematical analysis, and
algebraic structures. For the teaching intervention, the first unit of the subject was selected.
In order to construct the mathematical modelling activity analysed here, one of the
physical problems linked to the origins of the concept of ordinary differential equations
was chosen: the problem of free fall. For this problem, two solutions given by Galileo and
Newton, respectively, were exposed. The students worked through the lecture and activities
found in Section 4.4. The learning objectives for the mathematical modelling activity are
those presented in Table 1. The activity also considered five transversal objectives: (i) the
introduction of students to the notion of modelling assumptions; (ii) the use of theoretical
models to identify the variables and parameters that are involved in the mathematical
model; (iii) the translation of textual information into a symbolic expression with clear
definitions of constants and variables; (iv) the encouragement of validation on the models
with real or laboratory experiments; and (v) the proposal of generalised models that increase
the approximation and are valid under new assumptions.
As the reader can see in Table 1, the learning objectives are presented in increasing
order of difficulty, from identifying the physical meanings of the coefficients in a first-
order ordinary differential equation to building the notion of a solution to an ordinary
differential equation.
4.2. Participants
For the development of this research, an intervention was carried out during the first
semester of 2018 in a course on “ordinary differential equations” for preservice teachers
(mathematical education program) at a Chilean university.
Twelve students (from a total of thirty-three students in the course) voluntarily partici-
pated in the research. All students were participating in the course for the first time. At
the beginning of the intervention, the students formed groups of, at most, four students.
We must emphasise that the total number of students in the course was thirty-three; all of
them participated in the activities, and although the written material of all the groups was
collected, for the purposes of the analysis presented in this paper, only three groups (of
four students each) were selected based on the following criteria: regularity of participation
in the development of the activity, punctuality and class attendance, and the presence of
well-documented written work.
4.3. Procedures for Data Collection

The data collection was performed during the class schedule while the students
completed the mathematical modelling activities in groups. No limits were imposed on the
use of sources such as printed or digital texts or numerical, symbolic, or graphic calculation
software. Students worked on the activities without interaction between groups. After the
students solved the task, the researchers gathered the written work from each group. Then,
the teacher presented and discussed the solution with the whole class.
We must observe two facts. First, the data used in the present investigation are part
of a broader investigation where ten lectures were considered to cover the teaching of
other concepts of differential equations, including, for instance, stability, existence, and
uniqueness, equilibrium points, and asymptomatic behaviour. The details of this complete
intervention design are presented in [65]. Second, during data collection, the researcher
was only an observer and did not interact with the participants.
4.4. The Mathematical Modelling Activity

We analysed the written work in which students presented their processes used to
find a solution. Following the content analysis methodology, we looked for paragraphs
indicating some information regarding the learning objectives shown in Table 1.
The mathematical modelling activity was compounded by two parts. In the first
part, called “Lecture: The free fall problem”, the context was presented (see Section 4.4.1).
The second part contained the activities for the students (see Section 4.4.2). The activities
focused on the construction of their own notions of the concepts of an ordinary differential
equation and the solution to an ordinary differential equation.
4.4.1. Lecture: The Free Fall Problem

The phenomenon of free fall of a body is probably the simplest example of the first
context historically related to the theory of differential equations. In what follows, different
aspects related to this problem are reviewed. We begin by recalling that, until the end of
the 17th century, mathematicians and scientists working in astronomy thought in terms of
magnitudes related to the motions of the planets. This method of analysing celestial bodies
changed significantly thanks to the innovative work of Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727). The
main contribution of Newton was the incorporation of an analysis based on the forces acting
on bodies instead of their motions. More specifically, Newton described the forces acting on
celestial bodies, stated the laws under which motion occurs, and introduced mathematical
models to describe motion. Newton’s findings opened up new avenues for looking at the
universe and gave scientists a new set of tools for examining it (Newton’s laws of motion).
It is also known that Newton influenced other mathematicians, such as Euler and Bernoulli,
prompting them to interpret phenomena in the language of differential equations. In the
lecture, this initial historical period of differential equations was contextualised with the
free fall of a body.
The free fall problem is stated as follows:
Problem 1. A body of a given mass is at rest at a certain height above the earth. Determine the
velocity and distance travelled by this body if it is dropped.
The solutions of Galileo and Newton are described below.
Galileo-type solution to Problem 1. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was an Italian scientist who,
among other problems, was interested in the movement of bodies. He is the foremost
representative of what happened in scientific discovery before Newton. Curiously, the
year of his death coincides with the year of Newton’s birth. Galileo was an experimentalist
who developed systematic ways to build experiments, which led him to find certain
relationships between several magnitudes. In particular, regarding the motion of bodies,
Galileo considered the following assumption:
(S1) The object moves without resistance, and the deceleration effect due to friction is
discarded; that is, it is considered as if the body were falling in a vacuum.
Under the assumption (S1), using the inclined plane experiment, he empirically dis-
covered the following laws:
(G1) If an object moves at constant speed (without acceleration), the distance is proportional
to the time, and the constant of proportionality is the speed.
(G2) In uniformly accelerated motion, velocity is proportional to time, and the constant of
proportionality is acceleration.
(G3) In uniformly accelerated motion, distance is proportional to time squared, and the
constant of proportionality is half the acceleration.
These laws can be expressed algebraically by the following equations:
e = vt, (2)
v = at, (3)
a
e = t2 , (4)
2
respectively. In these equations, e denotes the distance, v is the velocity, a is the acceleration,
and t is the time. Note that (2) ocurrs with a = 0. According to (G1), Galileo discovered
that the solution to Problem 1 is given by
g 2
v = gt, e= t , (5)
2
where g is the acceleration due to gravity.

Newton-type solution to Problem 1. When performing free fall experiments in environments
where the assumption (S1), considered by Galileo, is not valid, it was observed that the
solution (5) to the problem is not valid either. Thus, it was necessary to develop a more
general theory to solve the problem under more realistic conditions. An example that
came much later than Newton that clearly shows this fact was the experiment by the test
parachutist Vasili Romaniuk (1910–1993). In 1945, Vasili jumped with a closed parachute
and fell more than 12,000 m in these conditions. If we assume that (S1) is valid for this case,
the time and velocity would be
s r
2e 2(12000)m
t= = m/s2 ≈ 49.5 s,
g 9.8
v = gt ≈ (9.8 m/s)(49.5 s) ≈ 485m/s,
respectively. However, Vasili reached a speed of approximately 60 m/s. Thus, the formulas
deduced by Galileo led to erroneous results.
Newton observed that, to generalise Galileo’s theory, it was necessary to pay more
attention to the forces involved in the movement. This is because he noticed that Galileo’s
laws worked under the action of a single force, the force of gravity. Now, in the presence of
air, there is another balancing force that was not taken into account by Galileo; this force is
air resistance. This force is what prevented the skydiver from falling at a speed of 485 m/s
and is what causes a phenomenon whose behaviour is as if it “supported” the skydiver.
More specifically, Newton formulated the following three laws of motion:
(N1) Every body perseveres in its state of rest or uniform and rectilinear movement unless
it is forced to change its state by external forces acting on it.
(N2) The change in motion is directly proportional to the external driving force and occurs
according to the straight line along which that external force moves.
(N3) For every action, an equal and opposite reaction always occurs, which means that the
mutual actions of two bodies are always equal and directed in the opposite direction.
Note that the three laws of Newton are stated in terms of forces, and it is supposed
that (S1) does not hold.
In the case of free fall movement, we suppose that the body is moving only because of
two forces, gravity and air resistance, which are given by
P = mg, (6)
S = −bv, (7)
respectively, where m is the mass and b is a proportionality constant. The negative sign
in (7) means that this force is in the opposite direction to the velocity. Now, we apply (N2)
and deduce the following relation:
ma = P + S, (8)
where a is the acceleration of the body. By replacing (6) and (7) in (8), we deduce that
b
a=− v + g. (9)
m
In (9) and for b > 0, it is possible to clear v and obtain v = m( g − a)/b to answer Problem 1.
However, this expression is given in terms of an unknown quantity: a. Apparently, the
relationship (9) is not enough to give an answer to Problem 1. This perception is wrong,
since this difficulty can be overcome by incorporating the relationships among acceleration,
velocity, distance, and time under the concept of the “derivative of a function”, that is,
de
v= , (10)
dt
dv
a= , (11)
dt
which were defined by Newton as part of his discovery of differential calculus. Replacing
(11) in (9) we have
dv b
= − v + g. (12)
dt m
Similarly, by replacing (10) in (11) and then using the result shown in (9), we deduce that
d2 e b de
=− + g. (13)
dt2 m dt
The velocity and distance travelled, which satisfy the relations (12) and (13), represent the
Newton solution to Problem 1.
4.4.2. Activities for the Students

After reading the lecture, the students answered the following questions:
(I) Observe the relation (12) and give a justified answer to the following questions:
(a) What is the physical meaning of m? What kind of mathematical object (number
or scalar, vector, matrix, function, or operator) is m? Is this quantity a given data
point or an unknown for the problem?
(b) Answer the same questions given in item (a) for b.
(c) Answer the same questions given in item (a) for g.
(d) Answer the same questions given in item (a) for v.
(II) In the absence of the force of air resistance, we have S = 0 or, equivalently, b = 0,
according to (7). In this case, from (12)–(13), the Newton-type solution to Problem 1 is
given by
dv
=g (14)
dt
d2 e
= g. (15)
dt2
Give a justified answer to the following questions:
(a) Obtain algebraic expressions for v and e that satisfy (14) and (15), respectively.
(b) Consider v defined in (5) and replace it in (14). Similarly, consider e defined in (5)
and replace it in (15). What do you observe?
(c) From (a) and (b), deduce how Galileo’s and Newton’s solutions to Problem 1 are
related in the case of the absence of air resistance.
(III) It is convenient to note that Galileo gave explicit formulas for v and e. On the other
hand, the solutions offered by Newton in (12) and (13) require a procedure to deduce
the values of v and e. In general terms, it can be said that, to obtain Newton’s solution
to Problem 1, it is necessary to “find” both v and e by some procedure. Taking into
account that you have to “find” some unknown quantities and that the derivatives of
these unknown expressions also participate, answer each of the following questions
with justification:
(a) What name would you give to expressions such as those given in (12) and (13)?
and why?
(b) What roles do v and e play in expressions such as (12) and (13)?
4.4.3. Remarks of MEA Principles Used in the Lecture

The principle of reality corresponds to the interpretation of the context presented in
a concrete, physical, or real situation. We understand that something can be real when it
is imaginable for individuals. In this case, it is related to the historical point of view. In
the free fall problem, the physical situation is connected with the previous knowledge of
students, and it is clearly conceivable for them to achieve a mathematical interpretation
using their own experience.
Related to the model construction principle, in the first task, the construction of a
model was not precisely addressed. In this task, an introductory activity for the students to
explore a model was considered. Moreover, the lecture included an introduction to some
properties of modelling practices, like the modification and extension of mathematical
models and a description or explanation of the phenomenon.
The third and fourth principles are satisfied as the students work in teams where they
have the opportunity to express their thinking regarding the solution processes. Thus, they
are able to evaluate their progress by checking out their answers, and at the same time,
information in written form is collected.
The simple prototype principle is naturally present in the activity since, in the lecture,
a widely studied model is presented, and its history gives rise to the construction of a
model that stands out for its simplicity and clarity.
In relation to the sixth principle, the generalisation of the models presented in the
lecture was addressed as the students advanced in the solution processes of the other tasks.
However, with the Galileo and Newton models, it was possible to reflect on the behaviours
in situations that are described by similar models.
5. Analysis of the Data and Interpretation

Information about students’ production data is displayed at the end of the article in
Tables A1–A4. Moreover, a summary of the sentences is given in Table 2.
For objectives O1.T1-L1, O2.T1-L1 and O3.T1-L1, we studied the answers to items I(a),
I(b), and I(c) given in rows 1, 2, and 3 of Table A1, respectively. Regarding the objective
O1.T1-L1, it was deduced that the students did not present difficulties with identifying the
physical meanings of m, b, g and v in the first-order ordinary differential equation
dv b
= − v + g, (16)
dt m
which was introduced in a contextualised way in the lecture on the free fall problem as a
model for describing the change in velocity of a body in free fall and under the assumptions
of Newton. The three groups clearly expressed that m is the mass, b is a constant of
proportionality, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and v is the velocity. For the objective
O2.T1-L1, it was observed that the students from all groups identified m and b as scalar
quantities, but with regard to g, two groups identified it as a scalar and one of them as
a vector. The association of g as a vector probably stems from the fact that the students
took courses in physics where it was emphasised that the acceleration of gravity is a vector
quantity. However, in the case of the free fall problem, the direction and sense of the
acceleration due to gravity remain fixed, and the notation g is a scalar. Regarding O3.T1-L1,
it was observed that the students clearly recognised the parameters in the equation, since
they reported m, b, and g as data. It is necessary to comment that one of the groups omitted
their opinion regarding b, but taking into account that they recognised it as a constant of
proportionality, it can be deduced that, for them, b also represents data.
Regarding objective O4.T1-L1, we inspected the students’ production for Item I(d),
which is given in row 4 of Table A1. “What is the physical meaning of v in (16)?” “What
kind of mathematical object is v?” “Is this quantity a given or an unknown for Problem
1?” It should be noted that here Problem 1 refers to the problem of free fall: “A body of
given mass is at rest at a certain height above the earth. Determine the velocity and the
distance travelled by this body if it is dropped.” As a response to this item, students are
expected to recognise that, physically, v is the velocity of the body and, mathematically, it
is a function of a real variable and that for the differential Equation (16), it is an unknown.
It was observed that the three groups recognised that v is an unknown for the differential
equation. Specifically, the transcription from a production standpoint: “v is the speed, is a
function, is an unknown for the problem” (Group 1); “v = velocity is an unknown for the problem,
is a vector” (Group 2); and “v, velocity, function or operator, unknown” (Group 3). However,
there is no coincidence regarding the type of mathematical object, since for Group 1 it is a
function, for Group 2 it is a vector, and for Group 3 it is a function or operator.
Table 2. Summary of students’ productions for the activities given in Section 4.4.2. Here, the LO code
is referred to in the second column of Table 1, and Gr refers to the group. The complete information,
including the original students’ production, is shown in Tables A1–A4.
LO Item Gr
Code Translations of the Sentences Produced by the Students
I (a) 1 The physical meaning of m is mass. The mathematical object is a number. It is data for the problem.
2 m = mass. It is a number or scalar. It is a datum.
3 m, mass, number or scalar, datum.
01.T1-L1 I (b) 1 b is a constant of proportionality, it is a number, it is a datum for the problem.
02.T1-L1 2 n = is a constant of proportionality, number, or scalar.
03.T1-L1 3 b, constant of proportionality, number or scalar, datum
I (c) 1 g is the acceleration of the gravity, it is a number, it is a datum for the problem.
2 g = the acceleration of the gravity. It is a number or scalar. It is a datum.
3 g, acceleration of the gravity, vector, datum.
I (d) 1 v is the the velocity, it is a function, it is an unknown for the problem
04.T1-L1 2 v = velocity is an unknown for the problem, it is a vector.
3 v, velocity, function or vector, unknown.
II (a) 1 The group failed to determine e and find the relation gt − v = C for v *
05.T1-L1 2 The group failed to determine both e and√ v*
3 √
The group found the expressions e = g t3 and v = gt *
II (b) 1 They checked that v = gt satisfies v0 (t) = g and failed to check that e = gt2 /2 satisfies e00 (t) = g *
06.T1-L1 2 They checked that v = gt and e = gt2 /2 are solutions to v0 (t) = g and e00 (t) = g, respectively *
3 They checked that v = gt satisfies v0 (t) = g and failed to check that e = gt2 /2 satisfies e00 (t) = g *
II (c) 1 Empty *
07.T1-L1 2 Empty *
3 Both solutions are equal, which means that under the absence of air force, both solutions are equal.
unknown derivative equation, because we do not know the derivatives of the values that we want
III (a) 1
08.T1-L1 to find
2 Empty *
differential equation, since it is an equation that is constituted by differentials of a function and
3
constant values
III (b) 1 Empty *
09.T1-L1 2 play the roles of vectors.
3 . . . are the differentials of the equations.
* The text corresponds to a summary of the symbolic process and not to sentences produced by students. Empty
means that they did not respond to the activity.
For the objective O5.T1-L1, we examined the answers to Item II(a) (see Table A2). In
this case, the students were requested to determine the expressions for v and e that satisfy
the following relations:
dv d2 e
=g and = g.
dt dt2
Group 2 carried out a sequence of steps without being able to determine the correct answer.
None of the three groups were able to determine an algebraic expression for e. Groups 1
and 3 used properties of integration to find v, with the expressions gt − v = C and v = gt
being reported as solutions, respectively. Group 3 realised that the expression for e could be
derived via integration, but in the attempt to apply integration
R 2 properties, they incorrectly
R
interpreted
R 2 the second-order
R 2 derivative: the integral d e was interpreted as ede, and
dt was interpreted as t dt. It is important to remember that the students took courses
on differential and integral calculus, where they experimented with expressions of the
form f 0 ( x )dxR and high-order derivatives, in particular, with f 00 ( x ), but here they did not
R
recognise that f 00 ( x )dx can be rewritten as g0 ( x )dx with g( x ) = f 0 ( x ). In this sense, the
R
error is related to one of the appreciations given by [79]: the student needs some time to
familiarise himself with notations and terminologies until they become part of his “body of
knowledge”.
Regarding objective O6.T1-L1, we analysed Item II(b) (see row 1 of Table A3). The
three groups used properties of differentiation to verify that v = gt is a solution to v0 (t) = g.
With regard to verifying that e = gt2 /2 is a solution to e00 (t) = g, only Group 2 carried out
a verification through differentiation. In this item, they were also asked to give an open
opinion regarding their observations, which was not completed by any of the groups.
For objective O7.T1-L1, we reviewed the answers to item II(c) (see row 2 of Table A3).
In this case, only Group 3 wrote the following: “both solutions are equal, this means that under
the absence of air force, both solutions are equal” for the request to describe the relationship
between the solutions proposed by Galileo and Newton to the problem of free fall. It is
recalled that the expressions for the speed and the distance travelled by the body deduced
by Galileo are v = gt and e = gt2 /2, and those deduced by Newton are v = gt + C0 and
e = gt2 /2 + C1 t + C2 , respectively, with C0 , C1 and C2 as constants. It is observed that the
students emphasised the assumption of the “absence of air force” or, to be precise, the force
of air resistance; that is, they deduced that there is a relationship of equality in the solutions
under this assumption.
In order to study objectives O8.T1-L1 and O9.T1-L1, we examined the answers to
items III(a) and III(b) (see Table A4). In item III(a), taking advantage of the context of the
Newtonian solution to the free fall problem,
dv b d2 e b de
= − v+g and 2
=− + g, (17)
dt m dt m dt
students were asked to propose the notion of a differential equation. In this case, students
were expected to create a text close to the formal definition of a differential equation. Faced
with this activity, one group did not give any response, and the other two groups wrote
the following: “unknown derivative equation, because we do not know the derivative of the values
we want to find” (Group 1) and “differential equation, since it is an equation that is constituted
by the differential of a function and constant values ” (Group 3). It is observed that the notion
described by Group 3 is the appropriate one and that both groups agreed that there is
an unknown object; Group 1 did not make it explicit, and Group 3 established that it is
a function. A difference is that, in their justification, the students in Group 1 established
their notion in terms of derivatives and those in Group 3 established theirs in terms of
differentials. Regarding item III(b), the following responses were reported: “play the role
of vectors” (Group 2) and “are the differentials of the equations” (Group 3). It is observed
that the students did not understand the requested objects as functions that play the roles
of solutions to the differential equations. Thus, from here, we conclude that to construct
a definition or solution to an ordinary differential equation, the students did not exhibit
pertinent technical writing and confused some concepts, such as v being identified as a
vector being a function, and in (17), the equations are in terms of the ordinary derivatives
of primer and second order and not in terms of differentials.
6. Discussion
In this article, we addressed two important issues related to the teaching and learning
of differential equations: (a) we proposed a model-eliciting activity to facilitate the students’
learning of ordinary differential equation concepts and (b) we characterised the conceptual
learning of first-order differential equations developed by students when they solved a task
built on the basis of a model-eliciting activity approach. The first issue (a) was addressed
by identifying relevant concepts associated with differential equations and creating a task
to accomplish them, following the approach of model-eliciting activities. In particular, we
considered the six principles to construct a specific model-eliciting activity. The activity
was divided into two parts. The first part, called “Lecture: The free fall problem”, contained
contextualised solution approaches given by Galileo and Newton to the free fall problem.
In the second part, through different activities, we encouraged the students to construct
basic concepts of first-order ordinary differential equations, such as definitions of ordinary
differential equations and solutions to ordinary differential equations. Moreover, the
context of the lecture allowed us to propose a way to favour interactions between the
meanings related to differential equations and the meanings related to physics.
In summary, regarding the task design for teaching differential equations, we struc-
tured and developed a method of design that considered contextualised situations in
different areas of the discipline and included a series of questions following the principles
of MEAs. This method was also used as support for planning the content of a whole course
on differential equations [65].
Regarding the characterisation of the conceptual learning of first-order differential
equations (b), our findings are described in the data analysis presented in Section 5. In
a broad sense, taking into account the answers of the students, we argued that the con-
struction of concepts and the learning of procedures associated with differential equations
were favourably stimulated by the proposed model-eliciting activity. Particularly, we ob-
served that the students adequately understood the description of the texts and correctly
interpreted the physical meanings of velocity, gravity, and air resistance force. Regarding
the interpretation of mathematical meanings, students presented difficulties by confusing
the role of mathematical objects, which were deduced through inappropriate associations
with known characteristics of the object from the point of view of physics. However, this
inadequate mathematical interpretation was not an obstacle for them in constructing the
notion of a differential equation. Related to the use of procedures, the students did not
present difficulties in carrying out analytic procedures such as differentiation and algebraic
rearrangements. This favoured the students’ ability to correctly carry out an activity where
they were asked to verify that a given function is a solution to a certain differential equation.
However, they presented difficulties with the procedures related to integralR calculus, since
they did not perform the correct calculation of the integral of the form f 00 ( x )dx.
On the other hand, a limitation of the study is that the productions presented by the
students in the course that did not belong to any of the three groups were not analysed.
7. Conclusions
In this research, a model-eliciting activity to facilitate the learning of concepts of
ordinary differential equations was proposed. In this context, the conceptual learning of
the students who participated in the process of solving the activities was characterised. The
analysis of students’ written productions showed the presence of indicators of the learning
objectives related to previously established concepts. The main findings were as follows:
(i) The students recognised the physical meanings of the parameters involved in the
differential equations; and (ii) The students, in spite of precise technical notations and
terminologies, were able to construct their own notion of a differential equation close to
the standard definition. In addition, we observed that the students were confused with the
notation and some mathematical meanings that were part of their prior knowledge. For
example, in the differential equation for the free fall problem, they recognised velocity as
a vector, but the role it plays from the point of view of mathematics is a scalar. This is an
important point to reflect on because, currently, the teaching of subjects from mathematics
tends to be related to subjects from other disciplines, so it is necessary to take into account
the difficulties that students may experience when working with concepts that can have
different meanings in other disciplines.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, E.L., C.G.-O., A.C. and R.M.; methodology, E.L.; software,
E.L.; validation, C.G.-O., A.C. and R.M.; formal analysis, E.L. and C.G.-O.; investigation, E.L., C.G.-O.
and R.M.; resources, C.G.-O. and A.C.; data curation, E.L.; writing—original draft preparation, E.L.
and A.C.; writing—review and editing, E.L., C.G.-O., A.C. and R.M.; visualisation, E.L.; supervision,
E.L. and C.G.-O.; project administration, E.L.; funding acquisition, C.G.-O. and A.C. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially founded by: Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
(ANID)-Chile through projects Fondecyt/iniciación No. 11200169, Fondecyt/Regular No. 1230560,
and Fondecyt/Regular No. 1200005; EDU2017-84276-R, España; Universidad del Bío-Bío (Chile)
through research project 2120436 IF/R, research project INES I+D 22–14; and the Universidad
Tecnológica Metropolitana through a project supported by the Competition for Research Regular
Projects, year 2020, Code LPR20-06.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to anonymous review-
ers of the manuscript, and to Matías Camacho (Universidad de la Laguna, España) and Francisco
Cortez (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México) for their observations on the topic of the paper when
they made the review of Ph.D. thesis [65].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Production of Students for Activities Given on Section 4.4.2
Table A1. Student productions for the activities of Item I given on Section 4.4.2.
Item Group Production Translation
a) The physical meaning of m is mass. The

1 mathematical object is a number. It is data
for the problem.
I (a)
2 (a) m = mass. It is a number or scalar. It

is a datum.
3 m, mass, number or scalar, datum.
1 b) b is a constant of proportionality, is a
number, is a datum for the problem.
I (b)
2 (b) n = is a constant of proportionality,

number or scalar.
3
b, constant of proportionality, number or
scalar, datum
Table A1. Cont.
1 c) g is the acceleration of the gravity, is a

number, is a datum for the problem.
I (c)
(c) g = the acceleration of the gravity. It

2 is a number or scalar. It is a datum.
3 g, acceleration of the gravity, vector, datum.
1 d) v is the the velocity, is a function, is an

unknown for the problem
I (d)
2 (d) v = velocity is an unknown for the

problem, is a vector.
v, velocity, function or vector, unknown.
Table A2. Students’ productions for the activities of Item II(a) given on Section 4.4.2. The “*” in the
translation column corresponds to the “*” notation of the students’ production.
II (a)
(a) We have the equations ...

using the fact that S = 0, we
have that −bv = 0 where −b or v is
equal to 0.
2 * we have that the derivative
of 0 with respect to t is 0. Then:
if b is equal to 0.
* we have that the derivative
of 0 with respect to t is 0. We
conclude that . . . y = 0.
Table A2. Cont.
3 Expression for “e”

...
Expression for “v”
Table A3. Student productions for the activities of Item II(b) and Item II(c) given on Section 4.4.2.
II (b) (b) From ... v = gt, we apply the derivative ...

...obtaining ...
2 ...we calculate the second derivative ...
...we observe that, when we derivative ...we obtain ...
3
Table A3. Cont.

1
2
II (c)
Both solutions are equal, this means that under the
3 absence of air force both solutions are equal.
Table A4. Student productions for the activities of Item III given on Section 4.4.2.
Item Group Production Transalation
a) unknown derivative equation, because we do

1 not know the derivative of the values we want
to find
III (a)
2
(a) differential equation, since it is an

3 equation that is constituted by differentials
of a function and constant values
III (b) 2 (b) play the role of vectors.
3 (b) are the differentials of the equations.
References
1. Arslan, S. Traditional instruction of differential equations and conceptual learning. Teach. Math. Appl. 2010, 29, 94–107. [CrossRef]
2. Alves de Oliveira, E.; Camargo, S.B. Ensino e aprendizagem de equações diferenciais: Um levantamento preliminar da produção
científica. Teia-Rev. Educ. Mat. Tecnol. Iberoam. 2013, 4, 1–24.
3. Barros, A.A.; Laudares, J.B.; de Miranda, D.F. A resolução de problemas em ciências com equações diferenciais ordinárias de 1a e
2a ordem usando análise gráfica. Educ. Mat. Pesqui. 2014, 16, 323–348.
4. Arslan, S. Do students really understand what an ordinary differential equation is? Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 41,
873–888. [CrossRef]
5. Artigue, M.; Gautheron, V. Systemes Differentiels: Etude Graphique; Editions Cedic: Paris, France, 1983.
6. Blanchard, P. Teaching differential equations with a dynamical systems viewpoint. Coll. Math. J. 1994, 25, 385–393. [CrossRef]
7. Boyce, W.E. New Directions in Elementary Differential Equations. Coll. Math. J. 1994, 25, 364–371. [CrossRef]
8. Habre, S. Investigating students’ approval of a geometrical approach to differential equations and their solutions. Int. J. Math.
Educ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 34, 651–662. [CrossRef]
9. Hernández, A. Obstáculos en la Articulación de los Marcos Numérico, Gráfico y Algebraico en Relación con las Ecuaciones
Diferenciales Ordinarias. Ph.D. Thesis, Cinvestav, Ciudad de México, Mexico, 1995.
10. Rasmussen, C.L.; King, K.D. Locating starting points in differential equations: a realistic mathematics education approach. Int. J.
Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 2000, 31, 161–172. [CrossRef]
11. Lesh, R.; Doerr, H. Beyond Constructivism: A Models and Modeling Perspective on Mathematical Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003.
12. Edelstein-Keshet, L. Mathematical Models in Biology. (Classics in Applied Mathematics, 46); Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (SIAM): Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005.
13. Segel, L.A.; Edelstein-Keshet, L. A Primer on Mathematical Models in Biology; Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
(SIAM): Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013.
14. Dhaoui, I.; Van Bortel, W.; Arsevska, E.; Hautefeuille, C.; Tablado Alonso, S.; Kleef, E.V. Mathematical modelling of COVID-19: A
systematic review and quality assessment in the early epidemic response phase. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 116, S110.
15. Meehan, M.T.; Diana P.; Rojas, D.P.; Adekunle, A.I.; Adegboye, O.A.; Caldwell, J.M.; Turek, E.; Williams, B.M.; Marais, B.J.; Trauer,
J.M.; et al. Modelling insights into the COVID-19 pandemic. Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 2020, 35, 64–69. [CrossRef]
16. Crokidakis, N. Modeling the early evolution of the COVID-19 in Brazil: Results from a Susceptible-Infected-Quarantined-
Recovered (SIQR) model. Int. J. Modern Phys. C 2020, 31, 2050135.
17. Biswas, H.A.; Hossain, R.H.; Mondal, M.K. Mathematical Modeling Applied to Sustainable Management of Marine Resources
Procedia Eng. 2017, 194, 337–344.
18. Jyotsna, K.; Tandon, A. A nonlinear mathematical model investigating the sustainability of an urban system in the presence of
haphazard urban development and excessive pollution. Nat. Resour. Model. 2018, 31, e12163. [CrossRef]
19. Alabugin, A.; Osintsev, K.; Aliukov, S.; Almetova, Z.; Bolkov, Y. Mathematical foundations for modeling a zero-carbon electric
power system in terms of sustainability. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2180. [CrossRef]
20. Shodikin, A.; Istiandaru, A.; Purwanto, S.; Sudirman. Thinking errors of pre-service mathematics teachers in solving mathematical
modelling task. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1188, 012004. [CrossRef]
21. Anhalt, C.O.; Cortez, R. Developing Understanding of Mathematical Modeling in Secondary Teacher Preparation. J. Math. Teach.
Educ. 2015, 19, 523. [CrossRef]
22. English, L.D. Mathematical Modeling in the Primary School: Children’s Construction of a Consumer Guide Educ. Stud. Math.
2006, 63, 303. [CrossRef]
23. Hernández, M.L.; Levy R.; Felton-Koestler, M.D.; Zbiek, R.M. Mathematical Modeling in the High School Curriculum. Math.
Teach. 2016, 110, 336. [CrossRef]
24. Borromeo, R. Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process . ZDM Zentralblatt Didakt. Math. 2006,
38, 86–95.
25. Greefrath, G.; Vorhölter, K. Teaching and learning mathematical modelling: Approaches and developments from German
speaking countries. In Teaching and Learning Mathematical Modelling (ICME-13 Topical Surveys); Kaiser, G., Ed.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016.
26. Perrenet, J.; Zwaneveld, B. The many faces of the mathematical modeling cycle. J. Math. Model. Appl. 2012, 1, 3–21.
27. Stohlmann, M.; De Vaul, L.; Allen, C.; Adkins, A.; Ito, T.; Lockett, D.; Wong, N. What is known about secondary grades
mathematical modelling—A Review J. Math. Res. 2016, 8, 12–28. [CrossRef]
28. Kaiser, G.; Blomhøj, M.; Sriraman, B. Towards a didactical theory for mathematical modelling. ZDM. Zentralblatt Didakt. Math.
2006, 38, 82–85. [CrossRef]
29. Galbraigth, P. Models of Modelling: Genres, Purposes or Perspectives. J. Math. Model. Appl. 2012, 1, 3–16.
30. Leung, F.; Stillman, G.; Kaiser, G.; Won, K. (Eds.) Mathematical modelling education in east and west. In International Perspectives
on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2021.
31. Stillman, G.; Blum, W.; Kaiser, G. (Eds.) Mathematical Modelling and Applications. In ICTMA 17, International Perspectives on the
Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017.
32. Czocher, J.A. Introducing modeling transition diagrams as a tool to connect mathematical modeling to mathematical thinking.
Math. Think. Learn. 2016, 18, 77–106. [CrossRef]
33. Czocher, J.A. How can emphasizing mathematical modeling principles benefit students in a traditionally taught differential
equations course? J. Math. Behav. 2017, 45, 78–94. [CrossRef]
34. Lozada, E.; Guerrero-Ortiz, C.; Coronel, A.; Medina, R. Classroom methodologies for teaching and learning ordinary differential
equations: A systemic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Mathematics 2021, 9, 745.
35. Almeida, L.M.; Kato, L.A. Different approaches to mathematical modelling: Deduction of models and studens’ actions. Int.
Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2014, 9, 3–11.
36. Borssoi, A.H.; de Almeida, L.M.W. Modelagem matemática e aprendizagem significativa: Uma proposta para o estudo de
equações diferencias ordinárias. Educ. Mat. Pesqui. 2004, 6, 91–121.
37. de Almeida, L.M.W. Considerations on the use of mathematics in modeling activities. ZDM Math. Educ. 2018, 50, 19–30.
[CrossRef]
38. Flegg, J.A.; Mallet, D.G.; Lupton, M. Students’ approaches to learning a new mathematical model. Teach. Math. Appl. 2013, 32,
28–37.
39. Klymchuk, S.; Zverkova, T.; Gruenwald, N.; Sauerbier, G. Increasing engineering students’ awareness to environment through
innovative teaching of mathematical modelling. Teach. Math. Appl. 2008, 27, 123–130. [CrossRef]
40. Gruenwald, N.; Sauerbier, G.; Narayanan, A.; Klymchuk, S.; Zverkova, T. Applications in unusual contexts in engineering
mathematics: Students’ attitudes. Math. Teach. Res. J. Online 2010, 4, 53–67.
41. Laudares, B.J.; de Miranda, D.F. Investigando a iniciação à modelagem matemática nas ciências com equações diferenciais. Educ.
Mat. Pesqui. 2007, 9, 103–120.
42. Molina-Mora, J.A. Mathematical modeling as a didactic strategy for calculus teaching. Uniciencia 2017, 31, 19–36. [CrossRef]
43. Rodríguez, R. Teaching and learning modelling: The case of differential equations. Rev. Latinoam. Investig. Mat. Educ. 2010, 13,
191–210.
44. Liberatti, S.; da Silva, D. Mathematical modeling and analysis of mathematical models in mathematics education. Acta Sci. 2012,
14, 260–275.
45. Trigueros, M. Vínculo entre la modelación y el uso de representaciones en la comprensión de los conceptos de ecuación diferencial
de primer orden y de solución. Educ. Mat. 2014, 25, 207–226.
46. Zang, C.M.; Fernández, G.A.; León, M.N. Reflexiones sobre la implementación de problemas de modelado para la construcción
y resignificación de objetos matemáticos vinculados a las ecuaciones diferenciales. UNION Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Mat. 2015, 42,
150–165.
47. Alvim, B.N.P.; de Almeida, L.M.W. Linguistic appropriation and meaning in mathematical modeling activities. BOLEMA Bol.
Educ. Mat. 2019, 33, 1195–1214.
48. Guerrero-Ortiz, C.; Mejía-Velasco, H.R.; Camacho-Machín, M. Representations of a mathematical model as a means of analysing
growth phenomena. J. Math. Behav. 2016, 42, 109–126. [CrossRef]
49. Camacho-Machín, M.; Guerrero-Ortiz, C. Identifying and exploring relationships between contextual situations and ordinary
differential equations. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 46, 177–195.
50. Chaachoua, H.; Saglam, A. Modelling by differential equations. Teach. Math. Appl. 2006, 25, 15–22.
51. Melendez, B.; Bowman, S.; Erickson, K.; Swim, E. An integrative learning experience within a mathematics curriculum. Teach.
Math. Appl. 2009, 28, 131–144.
52. András, S.; Szilágyi, J. Modelling drug administration regimes for asthma: A romanian experience. Teach. Math. Appl. 2010, 29,
1–13.
53. Ribaric, S.; Kordas, M. Teaching cardiovascular physiology with equivalent electronic circuits in a practically oriented teaching
module. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2011, 35, 149–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Robinson, G.; Jovanoski, Z. Fighter pilot ejection study as an educational tool. Teach. Math. Appl. 2010, 29, 176–192. [CrossRef]
55. Rowland, D.R.; Jovanoski, Z. Student interpretations of the terms in first-order ordinary differential equations in modelling
contexts. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 35, 503–516. [CrossRef]
56. Rowland, D.R. Student difficulties with units in differential equations in modelling contexts. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2006,
37, 553–558. [CrossRef]
57. Vajravelu, K. Innovative strategies for learning and teaching of large differential equations classes. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ.
2018, 13, 91–95. [CrossRef]
58. Vega-Calderon, F.; Gallegos-Cazares, L.; Flores-Camachoc, F. Conceptual difficulties in understanding the bernoulli’s equation.
Rev. Eureka Sobre Ensenanza Divulg. Las Ciencias 2017, 14, 339–352.
59. de Loiola, J. Brazilian research on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM Math. Educ. 2010 42, 337–348.
60. Kaiser, G.; Sriraman, B. A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM Zentralblatt
Didakt. Math. 2006 38, 302–310. [CrossRef]
61. Barbosa, J. Modelagem matemática e os professores: A questão da formação. Bolema-Bol. Educ. Mat. 2001 14, 5–23.
62. Blomhøj, M. Mathematical modelling: A theory for practice. In International Perspectives on Learning and Teaching Mathematics;
Clarke, B., Clarke, D.M., Göran, E., Bengt, J., Lester, D.V., Wallby, A., Wallby, K., Eds.; National Center for Mathematics Education,
Göteborg University: Göteborg, Sweden, 2004; pp. 145–159.
63. Chamberlin, S.; Payne, A.; Kettler, T. Mathematical modeling: A positive learning approach to facilitate student sense making in
mathematics. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 53, 858–871. [CrossRef]
64. Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals; Handbook I. Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green & Co. : New York, NY, USA, 1956.
65. Lozada, E. Study of Advanced Mathematical Thinking in Teaching and Learning in Two Courses of Ordinary Differential
Equations with a Mathematical Moldeling Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de los Lagos, Osorno, Chile, 2023. (In Spanish)
66. Guo, W.; Li, W.; Tisdell, C.C. Pedagogy of Guiding Undergraduate Engineering Students Solving First-Order Ordinary Differential
Equations. Mathematics 2021 9, 1623. [CrossRef]
67. Rolong, D.A. Understanding of Concepts Involved in Resolution Processes of a Differential Equation. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad
de Antioquia, Antioquia, Colombia, 2022. (In Spanish)
68. Sijmkens, E.; Scheerlinck, N.; De Cock, M.; Deprez, J.. Benefits of using context while teaching differential equations. Int. J. Math.
Educ. Sci. Technol. 2022. [CrossRef]
69. Campos, A. Advanced algebraic thinking processes in students’ modelling activities. Teach. Math. Appl. Int. J. IMA 2022.
[CrossRef]
70. Slavit, D.; LoFaro, T.; Cooper, K. Understandings of solutions to differential equations through contexts, web-based simulations,
and student discussion. Sch. Sci. Math. 2002, 102, 380–390. [CrossRef]
71. Camunga, A.; Batard, L.F. Developing skills for selecting the most appropriate method for the solution of superior order ordinary
differential equations. Rev. Conrado 2017, 13, 82–88.
72. Carr, M.; Prendergast, M.; Breen, C.; Faulkner, F. How well do engineering students retain core mathematical knowledge after a
series of high threshold online mathematics tests? Teach. Math. Appl. 2017, 36, 136–150.
73. Dehesa de Gyves, N. Discursos en los registros algebraico y geométrico de las ecuaciones diferenciales ordinarias. Educ. Mat.
2006, 18, 123–148.
74. Dullius, M.M.; Araujo, I.S.; Veit, E.A. Teaching and learning of differential equations with graphical, numerical and analytical
approach: An experience in engineering courses. BOLEMA Bol. Educ. Mat. 2011, 24, 17–42.
75. Hyland, D.; van Kampen, P.; Nolan, B.C. Outcomes of a service teaching module on odes for physics students. Int. J. Math. Educ.
Sci. Technol. 2018, 49, 743–758. [CrossRef]
76. Kamps, H.J.L.; Van Lint, J.H. A comparison of a classical calculus test with a similar multiple choice test. Educ. Stud. Math. 1975,
6, 259–271. [CrossRef]
77. Tisdell, C.C. On mnemonic instruction and the shields acronym in the pedagogy of first-order differential equations. Teach. Math.
Appl. 2019, 38, 74–84.
78. Wittmann, M.C.; Black, K.E. Mathematical actions as procedural resources: An example from the separation of variables. Phys.
Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 2015, 11, 020114.
79. Villar, M.T.; Llinares, S. Análisis de errores en la conceptualización y simbolización de las ecuaciones diferenciales en alumnos de
químicas. Educ. Mat. 1996 8, 90–101.
80. Czocher, J.A.; Tague, J.; Baker, G. Where does the calculus go? An investigation of how calculus ideas are used in later coursework.
Int. J. Math. Sci. Technol. 2013, 44, 673–684. [CrossRef]
81. Camacho, M.; Perdomo, J.; Santos, M. Newblock Conceptual and cognitive processes in the introduction of ordinary differential
equations through problem solving. Ensenanza Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didact. 2012, 30, 9–32.
82. Mallet, D.G.; McCue, S.W. Constructive development of the solutions of linear equations in introductory ordinary differential
equations. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 40, 587–595. [CrossRef]
83. Bukova-Güzel, E. An examination of pre-service mathematics teachers’ approaches to construct and solve mathematical modelling
problems. Teach. Math. Appl. 2011, 30, 19–36.
84. Habre, S. Improving understanding in ordinary differential equations through writing in a dynamical environment. Teach. Math.
Appl. 2012, 31, 153–166.
85. Habre, S. Inquiry-oriented differential equations: A guided journey of learning. Teach. Math. Appl. 2019, 39, 201–212.
86. Habre, S. Exploring students’ strategies to solve ordinary differential equations in a reformed setting. J. Math. Behav. 2000, 18,
87. KarimiFardinpour, Y.; Gooya, Z. Comparing three methods of geometrical approach in visualizing differential equations. Int. J.
Res. Undergrad. Math. 2018, 4, 286–304. [CrossRef]
88. Marrongelle, K. The function of graphs and gestures in algorithmatization. J. Math. Behav. 2007, 26, 211–229. [CrossRef]
89. Rasmussen, C.; Blumenfeld, H. Reinventing solutions to systems of linear differential equations: A case of emergent models
involving analytic expressions. J. Math. Behav. 2007, 26, 195–210.
90. Rasmussen, C.; Keene, K. Knowing solutions to differential equations with rate of change as a function: Waypoints in the journey.
J. Math. Behav. 2019, 56, 100695. [CrossRef]
91. Artigue, M. Une recherche d’ ingenierie didactique sur l’enseignement des equations differentielles en primer cycle universitarie.
Irem Univ. Paris 1989, 107, 284–309.
92. Dullius, M.M. Enseñanza y Aprendizaje en Ecuaciones Diferenciales con Abordaje Gráfico, Numérico y Analítico. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain, 2009.
93. Brito, L.; Farias, P.H.; Cardoso, J.V.; Ribeiro, R. Teaching of ordinary differential equations using the assumptions of the pbl
method. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. 2020, 10, 7–20.
94. Barbarán, J.J.; Fernéz, J.A. The analysis of errors in the solution of ordinary differential equations. a methodology to develop
mathematical competence. Ensen. Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didact. 2014, 32, 173–186.
95. Blass, L.; Huguenim, A.F.; Irala, V.B.; da Silva, V. O estudo de equações diferenciais através da aplicação do perfil logarítmico do
vento. Teia Rev. Educ. Mat. Tecnol. Iberoam 2019, 10, 1–18.
96. Cordero, F.; Miranda, E. El entendimiento de la transformada de laplace: Una epistemología como base de una descomposición
genética. Rev. Latinoam. Investig. Mat. Educ. 2002, 5, 133–168.
97. Curia, L.; Pérez, M.; Lavalle, A. Evaluation of the contents of differential equations through mathematical competences. Rev.
Electron. Humanidades Educ. Comun. Soc. 2018, 26, 9–27.
98. Gijsbers, D.; de Putter-Smits, L.; Pepin, B. Changing students’ beliefs about the relevance of mathematics in an advanced
secondary mathematics class. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 51, 87–102. [CrossRef]
99. Goodchild, S.; Apkarian, N.; Rasmussen, C.; Katz, B. Critical stance within a community of inquiry in an advanced mathematics
course for pre-service teachers. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2020, 24, 231–252. [CrossRef]
100. Hansen, D.; Cavers, W.; George, G.H. Use of a physical linear cascade to teach systems modelling. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2003, 19,
682–695.
101. Hyland, D.; Van Kampen, P.; Nolan, B.C. Introducing direction fields to students learning ordinary differential equations (odes)
through guided inquiry. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 52, 331–348. [CrossRef]
102. Ju, M.-K.; Kwon, O.N. Ways of talking and ways of positioning: Students’ beliefs in an inquiry-oriented differential equations
class. J. Math. Behav. 2007, 26, 267–280. [CrossRef]
103. Kaw, A.K.; Yalcin, A. Problem-centered approach in a numerical methods course. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Pract. 2008, 134, 359–364.
[CrossRef]
104. Keene, K.A. A characterization of dynamic reasoning: Reasoning with time as parameter. J. Math. Behav. 2007, 26, 230–246.
105. Keene, K.A.; Rasmussen, C.; Stephan, M. Gestures and a chain of signification: The case of equilibrium solutions. Math. Educ.
Res. J. 2012, 24, 347–369. [CrossRef]
106. Kwon, O.N.; Rasmussen, C.; Allen, K. Students’ retention of mathematical knowledge and skills in differential equations. Sch.
Sci. Math. 2005, 105, 227–239. [CrossRef]
107. Rasmussen, C.L. New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties.
J. Math. Behav. 2001, 20, 55–87. [CrossRef]
108. Rasmussen, C.; Stephan, M.; Allen, K. Classroom mathematical practices and gesturing. J. Math. Behav. 2004, 23, 301–323.
[CrossRef]
109. Rasmussen, C.; Zandieh, M.; King, K.; Tepo, A. Advancing mathematical activity: A practice-oriented view of advanced
mathematical thinking. Math. Think. Learn. 2005, 7, 51–73. [CrossRef]
110. Rasmussen, C.; Marrongelle, K. Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics in instruction. J. Res.
Math. Educ. 2006, 37, 388–420
111. Rasmussen, C.; Kwon, O.N. An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. J. Math. Behav. 2007, 26, 189–194.
[CrossRef]
112. Raychaudhuri, D. A layer framework to investigate student understanding and application of the existence and uniqueness
theorems of differential equations. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 38, 367–381. [CrossRef]
113. Raychaudhuri, D. Dynamics of a definition: A framework to analyse student construction of the concept of solution to a
differential equation. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 39, 161–177. [CrossRef]
114. Raychaudhuri, D. Adaptation and extension of the framework of reducing abstraction in the case of differential equations. Int. J.
Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 45, 35–57. [CrossRef]
115. Raychaudhuri, D. A framework to categorize students as learners based on their cognitive practices while learning differential
equations and related concepts. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 44, 139–1256. [CrossRef]
116. Sabag, N. The effect of integrating lab experiments in electronic circuits into mathematic studies—A case study. Res. Sci. Technol.
Educ. 2017, 35, 427–444. [CrossRef]
117. Speer, N.M.; Wagner, J.F. Knowledge needed by a teacher to provide analytic scaffolding during undergraduate mathematics
classroom discussions. J. Res. Math. Educ. 2009, 40, 530–562. [CrossRef]
118. Stephan, M.; Rasmussen, C. Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. J. Math. Behav. 2002, 21, 459–490.
[CrossRef]
119. Wittmann, M.C.; Flood, V.J.; Black, K.E. Algebraic manipulation as motion within a landscape. Educ. Stud. Math. 2013, 82,
120. Andresen, M. Modeling with the software ’derive’ to support a constructivist approach to teaching. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ.
2007, 2, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Canu, M.; de Hosson, C.; Duque, M. Students’ understanding of equilibrium and stability: The case of dynamic systems. Int. J.
Sci. Math. Educ. 2016, 14, 101–123. [CrossRef]
122. Guerrero-Ortiz, C.; Camacho-Machín, M.; Mejía-Velasco, H.R. Difficulties experienced by students in the interpretation of the
solutions of ordinary differential equations that models a problem. Ensen. Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didact. 2010, 28, 341–352.
123. Heck, A. Bringing reality into the classroom. Teach. Math. Appl. 2009, 28, 164–179. [CrossRef]
124. Humble, S. Rolling and spinning coin: A level gyroscopic processional motion. Teach. Math. Appl. 2001, 20, 18–24. [CrossRef]
125. Molina-Mora, J.-A. ICT-projects-modeling based experience for teaching of systems of differential equations. Uniciencia 2015, 29,
46–61.
126. Rodríguez-Gallegos, R.; Quiroz-Rivera, S. The role of technology in the process of mathematical modeling for teaching differential
equations. Rev. Latinoam. Investig. Mat. Educ. 2016, 19, 99–124.
127. Vinner, S. A different test and different result analysis—An example from a calculus exam. J. Math. Didakt. 1994, 15, 311–326.
[CrossRef]
128. Molina, J.A. Experience in the incorporation of ict in teaching differential equations applied. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. 2015, 69, 79–96.
129. Blomhøj, M.; Kjeldsen, T.H. Project organised science studies at university level: Exemplarity and interdisciplinarity. ZDM Math.
Educ. 2009, 41, 183–198. [CrossRef]
130. Blomhøj, M.; Kjeldsen, T.H. Teaching mathematical modelling through project work. ZDM Math. Educ. 2006, 38, 163–177.
[CrossRef]
131. Latulippe, C.; Latulippe, J. Student perceptions of writing projects in a university differential-equations course. Int. J. Math. Educ.
Sci. Technol. 2013, 45, 1–11. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Articulo 8-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo 8-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Doctorado en Educación Matemática de la Universidad de Los Lagos, Universidad de Los Lagos,

Keywords: teaching differential equations; mathematical modelling; model-eliciting activities; free

Citation: Lozada, E.; Guerrero-Ortiz,

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612483 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

decisions [14–16]. Particularly in relation to sustainability, differential equations are used

different disciplines [25,27]. Particularly, a well-documented discussion on the role of mod-

Learning Objectives Code

Learning Objectives Code

3. Teaching and Learning of Ordinary Differential Equations

learning methodologies, since algebraic manipulation or calculus abilities are required by

4.3. Procedures for Data Collection

4.4. The Mathematical Modelling Activity

4.4.1. Lecture: The Free Fall Problem

The solutions of Galileo and Newton are described below.

where g is the acceleration due to gravity.

4.4.2. Activities for the Students

4.4.3. Remarks of MEA Principles Used in the Lecture

5. Analysis of the Data and Interpretation

Appendix A. Production of Students for Activities Given on Section 4.4.2

Item Group Production Translation

a) The physical meaning of m is mass. The

2 (a) m = mass. It is a number or scalar. It

3 m, mass, number or scalar, datum.

2 (b) n = is a constant of proportionality,

Table A1. Cont.

Item Group Production Translation

1 c) g is the acceleration of the gravity, is a

(c) g = the acceleration of the gravity. It

3 g, acceleration of the gravity, vector, datum.

1 d) v is the the velocity, is a function, is an

2 (d) v = velocity is an unknown for the

v, velocity, function or vector, unknown.

Item Group Production Translation

(a) We have the equations ...

Table A2. Cont.

Item Group Production Translation

3 Expression for “e”

Item Group Production Translation

II (b) (b) From ... v = gt, we apply the derivative ...

Table A3. Cont.

Item Group Production Translation

Item Group Production Transalation

a) unknown derivative equation, because we do

(a) differential equation, since it is an

III (b) 2 (b) play the role of vectors.

3 (b) are the differentials of the equations.

You might also like