< Previous | Contents | Next >
Stephanie Treffert-Thomas1, Paul Hernandez-Martinez1, Yuriy Rogovchenko2, Olov Viirman2
1Loughborough University, United Kingdom
2University of Agder, Norway
This study investigates the views and use of mathematical modelling (MM) in mathematics undergraduate courses in England and Norway from the perspective of lecturers. This includes a characterisation of MM views based on the modelling perspectives developed by Kaiser and Sriraman (2006). Through an online survey we aim to identify the main perspectives held in higher education by mathematics lecturers and the underlying rationale for integrating (or not) MM in undergraduate courses.
MM is widely used in physics, engineering, social and natural sciences. While research indicates that the teaching of MM is important and necessary (Blum and Niss, 1991), in practice MM seldom is a part of the curricula of mathematics degree programmes. Furthermore, when MM is viewed as an important part of students’ academic preparation, it is unclear whether it ought to be taught on its own, as a separate course, or incorporated into existing undergraduate courses as a subset of skills to be learnt. It has been widely reported that students find MM difficult (Soon et al, 2011); this adds to the reluctance of many lecturers to introduce MM as a part of their teaching. All of this leads to an even bigger gap between research and teaching of MM. Hence, in this project we ask:
1) What are the conceptions of MM that mathematics lecturers in England and Norway have?
2) To what extent do they use modelling in their teaching, and how?
3) Do they claim that modelling is important in mathematics/mathematics teaching? Why? Why not?
4) If they claim that it is important, but don’t use it in their teaching (which we hypothesise to be the case), what are the institutional and practical constraints hindering them?
In order to answer our questions above, the survey asked lecturers about their views on MM, their use of MM professionally and in undergraduate teaching, their aims in using or teaching MM, if they do so, or their reasons for not using it. The responses were elicited in the form of Likert scales, rankings and written statements in comment boxes.
We will present our results at the conference, identify similarities and differences between England and Norway with the aim of elucidating how different conceptions of MM influence the gap between research and practice.