18

LEARNING MODELS AND

MODELING ACROSS THE
STEM DISCIPLINES
Margret A. Hjalmarson, Nancy Holincheck,
Courtney K. Baker and Terrie M. Galanti

In sum, although different domains in science have their own fundamental questions,
methods, and standards for “what counts” as evidence, they are all engaged in the same
knowledge-building pursuit—the development of coherent and comprehensive explana-
tions through the testing of models.
(Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2008, p. 5)

We expand Windschitl et al’s (2008) domains beyond science to include mathematics, engineering,
and computational thinking. This chapter will explore how modeling is represented in each disci-
pline in K-12 education and how models and modeling can play a unique role in integrating STEM
content areas. Models and modeling as terms are used differently within and across disciplines, so it
is useful to explore the disciplinary nuances. We continue with some common aspects of modeling
across STEM that make it useful for integration. Modeling is inherently integrated since it is a pro-
cess of applying disciplinary knowledge to describe, explain, represent, and predict real phenomena.
Models are connected to the real world by a practice called “modeling” that includes some of the
processes and practices in Figure 18.1.

Models in Mathematics: Mathematical Modeling

and Modeling Mathematics
Models and modeling in the mathematical sense is a disciplinary practice where mathematics is
used to describe or represent phenomena. Mathematical models are created to describe or represent
real-world systems. Students often translate between written, verbal, physical symbolic and pictorial
representations of the real world (Cramer, 2003). These can include algebraic representations but
may also be models of spatial or geometric structures.
This section will focus on modeling as a practice in mathematics. When modeling is used in other
disciplines, it is often mathematical modeling that is referred to as the modeling component. For
instance, in engineering design or in scientific exploration, students may need to analyze data using
a mathematical model. So, we focus on this aspect of mathematical modeling practice to investigate
how modeling plays a role in the other disciplines. In mathematics, modeling provides a powerful
platform for understanding (Lehrer & Schauble, 2007) and solving problems from the real world
(Bonotto, 2007; Burkhardt, 2006) as students are able to apply mathematics in a creative and critical

223
 Margret A. Hjalmarson et al.

Explain
Describe
Simulate
Represent

Real World MODELING Models

Design
Predict
Prototype
Abstract

Figure 18.1 Models, the real world, and modeling.

manner that is essential to developing mathematical literacy as required by STEM fields (Carlson,
Wickstrom, Burroughs, & Fulton, 2016; Lesh & Yoon, 2007; Steen, Turner, & Burkhardt, 2007).
Additionally, modeling engages students and promotes productive mathematical dispositions (Lesh &
Yoon, 2007) while supporting an authentic and deep integrated understanding of the involved
mathematics (Lehrer & Schauble, 2007).
Since the nineteenth century, mathematics and mathematical modeling applications have played
an important role in teaching and learning (Kaiser, 2016). However, since the 1960s, the international
community has worked to better understand how mathematical situations are applied outside formal
mathematics learning (Freudenthal, 1968; Pollak, 2016). This focus on the teaching and learning
of mathematics as it is applied and modeled has been of specific interest (Kaiser, 2016; National
Research Council, 2013) due to the frequent disconnect that is perceived by teachers and students
(Hirsch & McDuffie, 2016). This disconnect stems from the fact that students often spend time on
problems that are far removed from real-world settings (Cirillo, Bartell, & Wager, 2016; Verschaf-
fel, Greer, & de Corte, 2000) and that word problems and applications have traditionally provided
irrelevant contexts (Tran & Dougherty, 2014). Although the practice of providing nonroutine, chal-
lenging problems has increased (de Carvahlo Borba, Villarreal, & da Silva Soares, 2016), the type
of problems many textbooks have identified as “modeling” are counter-productive as students are
either provided a model to work with or not engaged in developing a model of their own (Meyer,
2015). Although modeling in mathematics stemmed from problem solving and its role in teaching
mathematics (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007), modeling problems differ from typical mathematics prob-
lems (Cirillo, Bartell et al., 2016). Problem solving and modeling both provide authentic contexts
and engagement to students; however, modeling is unique in that the authentic problem forces the
students to develop mathematical models (de Carvahlo Borba & Villarreal, 2005).

Modeling with Mathematics, Modeling Mathematics

and Mathematical Modeling
A major challenge to modeling in mathematics is the limited agreement on many key aspects. Simi-
lar to how researchers have struggled to distinguish the differences between a problem-solving task
and a modeling task (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007), researchers have also struggled to consistently use
the term ‘modeling’ similarly (Perrenet & Zwaneveld, 2012). Specifically, the distinction between
modeling mathematics and mathematical modeling is not always clear in standards documents and
mathematics education research (Cirillo, Pelesko, Felton-Koestler, & Rubel, 2016). For example, in
2010, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2010), emphasized modeling as a mathematical practice and as a high school concept
(Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016; Zbiek & Conner, 2006). However, the CCSSM also “uses the terms

224
 Learning Models and Modeling Across STEM

model and modeling to mean both modeling mathematics and mathematical modeling without clarifying the
difference in meaning” (Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016, p. 3). This challenge is not unique to the United
States, as the international mathematics education community also recognizes that while modeling
in mathematics is important to teaching and learning (Kaiser & Sriraman, 2006), the way modeling
is discussed and implemented varies widely as well (Geiger, Ärlebäck, & Frejd, 2016).
In modeling mathematics, concrete objects or visual images are used to represent mathematical
ideas (Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016; Fennema, 1972; Phillips, 2016). Specifically, the aim of modeling
mathematics or creating models of mathematics is to support the facilitation and acquisition of
mathematical concepts (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007; Piaget, 1962). There are many ways an individual
can create a model for a mathematical idea. However, the way in which a student creates and inter-
acts with a model will have varying instructional implications, as students are demonstrating their
understanding of the phenomenon (Sinclair, 2016). Since these models are designed to represent key
mathematical ideas, they are removed from the real world (Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016). Modeling
mathematics can be a precursory activity that students can engage in to prepare for mathematical
modeling (Tam, 2011).
Mathematical modeling is different from modeling mathematics, and although it has been
described in a variety of ways, there are similar characteristics or features (Germain-Williams, 2014;
Gould, 2013; Lege, 2003; Niss, Blum, & Galbraith, 2007; Pollak, 2003). The CCSSM define math-
ematical modeling as “using mathematics or statistics to describe (i.e., model) a real-world situation
and deduce additional information about the situation by mathematical or statistical computation
and analysis” (Common Core Standards Writing Team, 2013, p. 5). Mathematical modeling allows
students to engage in opportunities to make sense of and apply mathematical ideas in an authentic
manner (Cavey & Champion, 2016; Gann, Avineri, Graves, Hernadez, & Teague, 2016; Lesh, Gal-
braith, Haines, & Hurford, 2010). Mathematical modeling is essential to seeing and applying math-
ematics in the real world (Blum & Ferri, 2009; Pollak, 2003).
Unique aspects of mathematical modeling are that it connects mathematics to real-world ques-
tions through the cyclic process of receiving a non-mathematized task, applying mathematics to
better understand the phenomenon and then circling back to the real-world questions to arrive at
solutions (Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016). Student-generated models from this iterative process provide
both insight into their mathematical thinking and understanding (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007) and
an increase in student engagement (Blum & Ferri, 2009). Unlike traditionally contextualized prob-
lems, mathematical modeling problems are often considered messy real-world situations due to the
multiple approaches and solutions that emerge (Bliss, Fowler, & Galluzzo, 2014; Cirillo, Bartell et al.,
2016; Cirillo, Pelesko et al., 2016; Galbraith & Stillman, 2006). Generating different types of models
or solutions is extremely valuable as certain models may not attend to all aspects of a problem, and
an awareness of multiple approaches might demonstrate deeper student understanding of the phe-
nomenon and new ideas to emerge for future revising (Groshong, 2016; Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007).

Models in Science—Modeling Concepts

Models in science are used to develop understanding about scientific phenomena through purpose-
ful model construction and may serve as a tool for predicting or explaining natural systems (Berland
et al., 2016). Ranging from physical models (e.g., a model of the solar system) to more abstract
mental models, scientific models represent real-world phenomena and require the user to make
connections between the model and the reality that is being modeled. A scientific model is “a set of
representations, rules, and reasoning structures that allow one to generate predictions and explana-
tions” (Schwarz & White, 2005, p. 166). Science makes use of mathematical models to aid in the con-
struction of models in science, to include the use of graphs and equations to explain and predict the
natural world. When used in science, models aid in the development of conceptual understanding,

225
 Margret A. Hjalmarson et al.

making predictions, and in application as the user aims to better understand the world (National
Research Council, 2012).
Scientific models represent a system or phenomenon and help the user make predictions, develop
explanations, and identify further questions. Models are built from data and thus are not static—
rather, they are constructed, evaluated, compared, and revised in an iterative cycle (Schwarz et al.,
2009). Scientific models include scale representations, idealized models (e.g., a frictionless inclined
plane), diagrams, mathematical representations, analogies, and phenomenological models. Although
it is tempting to classify scientific models into distinct bins, such as physical models, mathematical
models, or purely conceptual models, these are false distinctions. Scientific models are sometimes
physical, sometimes mathematical, but are always conceptual in nature. The construction of scientific
models involves abstraction to simplify a system in order to focus on key features of the phenomena
(Schwarz et al., 2009). A more useful classification system seeks to address how models are used.
Gouvea and Passmore (2017) provide a useful heuristic for differentiating between models, which
examines models of versus models for. Both models of and models for involve representations of phe-
nomena, but models of simply represent what is already known. In practice, this might involve users
creating a physical model or drawing a diagram about something they have previously learned, to
demonstrate their knowledge of the parts of the model and how it fits together. Although models of
are widely used in education, they are not typically used by scientists, as they do not help the user
develop explanations and predictions about the scientific system or phenomenon. Models of are
focused on the model as a product; in contrast, models for focus on models as process.
Scientists are likely to use models for in their own development and testing of scientific concepts.
Models for emphasize both the representation and what the model is for; or “the epistemic aims of the
representation’s intended use” (Gouvea & Passmore, 2017, p. 53). The model’s purpose and structure
are intertwined, so it is impossible to make sense of the model without understanding what it is
for. The use of models for the purpose of making predictions and understanding the world, and the
changeability and adaptability of models, is critical. Ultimately, the model is not the physical rep-
resentation created, but the concept that incorporates the phenomenon, the questions that guided
the development of the model, and the knowledge that has been developed as a result of use of the
model (Gouvea & Passmore, 2017).
Scientific models enable the user to ‘‘establish, extend, and refine’’ their knowledge (National
Research Council, 2012, p. 26), but this can happen only through the use of models for, or models used
for the purpose of understanding the world. NGSS (2013) calls for the integration of models with
other scientific practices, which calls for a shift within the science education community from models
of to models for (Bybee, 2014; Gouvea & Passmore, 2017). To support this transition, it is critical to
attend to the epistemological underpinnings in the application of modeling as a scientific practice.
Users need to understand and consider the purpose, methods, and goals of their work while engaged
in scientific practices (Schwarz, Ke, Lee, & Rosenberg, 2014). This can help students develop their
epistemologies as they make use of empirical evidence in their construction, application, and revision
of models (Baek & Schwarz, 2015). Models are thus epistemic tools used in explanation and predic-
tion of scientific phenomena (Knuuttila, 2005).
Scientific models can be characterized as representations of a system that may both clarify and
obscure elements of the system (NGSS Lead States, 2013). It is thus important to recognize the
limitations of models when in use. The user must be challenged to engage in explicit and conscious
separation of the model and the phenomenon it represents, to identify which aspects are not cap-
tured in the model (Lehrer & Schauble, 2003). Engaging in purpose-focused modeling rather than
­description-focused modeling can help the user address misconceptions about the science phe-
nomenon. Further engagement in the explanation, prediction, and refinement cycle can reduce the
development of further misconceptions. As understanding improves, scientific models are meant to
change; as a model generates new predictions, it can be tested and refined (Schwarz et al., 2009).

226
 Learning Models and Modeling Across STEM

Scientific modeling can play an essential role in scientific inquiry. The process of asking questions,
gathering data, developing models from evidence, and then applying and refining models is a more
authentic description of how scientists engage in inquiry than the scientific method (Windschitl
et al., 2008). Modeling helps users organize and understand the purpose of the scientific practices in
which they engage, which helps users engage in scientific sense-making (Passmore, Gouvea, & Giere,
2014). Models also typically result in the identification of new problems and new lines of inquiry
(Knuuttila, 2005).

Modeling as a Design Practice in Engineering

Modeling is often part of the engineering design process (Carberry & McKenna, 2014; Lammi &
Denson, 2017; Moore, Miller, Lesh, Stohlmann, & Kim, 2013). Engineering, perhaps more than
the other disciplines, also uses modeling in connection with mathematics, science, technology, or
computational thinking. Modeling is focused primarily on representations of the possible design, a
problem or a system. As a principle for K-12 engineering education,

The design process, the engineering approach to identifying and solving problems, is
(1) highly iterative; (2) open to the idea that a problem may have many possible solutions;
(3) a meaningful context for learning scientific, mathematical, and technological concepts;
and (4) a stimulus to systems thinking, modeling, and analysis. In all of these ways, engineer-
ing design is a potentially useful pedagogical strategy.
(National Research Council, 2009, p. 4)

While mathematical modeling is a part of engineering, this section will focus more on modeling
as part of the design process. A significant component of the design process is iterating and consider-
ing the purposes of the design. This sense of modeling also includes creating, designing, and refining
prototypes (Moore et al., 2014; Wendell & Rogers, 2013). The design process also supports students’
learning of scientific models (Capobianco, Nyquist, & Tyrie, 2013; Wendell & Lee, 2010).
Engineering activities regularly include math and science applications. However, when consider-
ing integrated STEM, there are some engineering-based ways of incorporating modeling. Modeling
appears in engineering in three ways related to the design processes which are essential to engineer-
ing as a discipline. The first is modeling as generating a prototype or initial design. So, students might
design an initial model house (Wendell & Rogers, 2013) as part of their design and problem solving.
That prototype can then be tested and revised in subsequent design cycles. This sense of prototypes
is language distinctive to engineering and is not regularly seen in mathematics or science.
The second way modeling is used in engineering is to generate mathematical models (e.g., func-
tions, equations, formulas) to describe phenomena. This mathematical modeling can be a component
of model-eliciting activities (Moore et al., 2013; Tank et al., 2018). The mathematical modeling might
serve an engineering goal in the design process. Related to mathematical models, engineering also
relies on computational thinking for simulations, calculations, and the development of algorithms.
Third, modeling in engineering is also the application of scientific models. Engineering tasks
can be used to support or elicit students’ understanding of scientific constructs (e.g., heat transfer in
the design of a model house; Wendell & Rogers, 2013). Another aspect of science modeling is the
application of scientific models that students need to carry out their design. Throughout the design
process, students need to consider science knowledge and may design artifacts that demonstrate that
knowledge.
The fourth affordance of engineering to modeling is the role of context. A design activity typi-
cally includes a realistic context, including its constraints. A client may be used to set constraints like
financial resources or material selection. As modeling is the connection between representations and

227
 Margret A. Hjalmarson et al.

the structure of the real world, engineering is an opportunity for the theoretical to meet the practical
in terms of modeling. The context is the distinction between modeling and other types of problem
solving since students need to engage with the world of the context in a meaningful and sometimes
messy way (English, 2009).
The final way modeling is used for engineering is to represent students’ conceptual understanding
and hence a method of developing understanding of concepts (sometimes from math and science).
So, the process of design creates natural opportunities to develop understanding of required concepts.
For instance, designing a model house will require development of knowledge of materials science,
and it presents an applied opportunity to use and develop knowledge (Wendell & Lee, 2010). Those
representations (in the form of designs) are models of students’ thinking. When students must express
their conceptual understanding in the form of engineering design, their knowledge is tested. For
instance, as they use different materials, their knowledge of the properties of those materials is tested
(e.g., when selecting materials for a paper basket, they can begin to examine properties of materials)
(Tank et al., 2018). Where science is modeling the real world, engineering is designing for the world
using models.

Models and Simulations in Computational Thinking

Although computational thinking (CT) is often described as modeling with computers (Israel,
Pearson, Tapia, Wherfel, & Reese, 2015), computer scientists define it more broadly as an analytic
competency that supersedes computer programming (National Research Council, 2010). CT is a
problem-solving process with specific characteristics related to problem formulation, organization
and representation of data, use of abstractions such as models, procedural or algorithmic thinking,
efficiency of solutions, and transferability of problem-solving processes (Grover & Pea, 2013; Wein-
trop et al., 2016).
Computational thinkers solve problems, design systems, and understand human behavior by
drawing on computing concepts (Wing, 2008, p. 3717). Within this broader conceptualization of
CT beyond programming, modeling becomes both the process and the product of abstraction (Bren-
nan & Resnick, 2016; Wing, 2008). More specifically, instruction in CT prepares students to model
the attributes of computational systems, to use computational systems and data to model problems in
other STEM disciplines, and to leverage and challenge the predictive quality of models.
The consistent classification of modeling and simulation as major categories in multiple CT
frameworks (Grover & Pea, 2013; Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017; Weintrop et al., 2016) make it
clear that CT extends far beyond computer programming because it builds the necessary problem-
solving skills students need to model with computers and interpret data. Thus, we associate modeling
with CT as “the conceptual foundation required to solve problems effectively and efficiently (i.e.,
algorithmically, with or without the assistance of computers) with solutions that are reusable in dif-
ferent contexts” (Shute et al., 2017, p. 142). Shute and colleagues (2017) identify six facets of CT in
their exhaustive literature review (p. 153). These facets align with use of models for problem solving
in K-12 mathematics and science:

a. Decomposition: Break problems down into smaller problems, which are then systematically solved
separately.
b. Abstraction: Identify essential features of a problem. This includes data collection and analysis,
identifying patterns within problems and solutions, and developing models to represent how a
system operates.
c. Algorithms: Design a sequence of logical instructions to develop a solution to a problem. These
instructions may be followed by a person or by a computer.
d. Debugging: Detect, identify, and fix errors when a system does not work as it should.

228
 Learning Models and Modeling Across STEM

e. Iteration: Repetition of the design process to refine solutions.

f. Generalization: Transfer of CT skills to efficiently solve problems in similar and different domains.

The intentional development of CT can be made explicit in mathematics and science mod-
eling activities beyond computer science instruction. Modeling and simulation of systems of varying
complexity become exercises in CT which connect mathematical reasoning, scientific inquiry, and
engineering thinking. Student processes of designing, creating, assessing, and using models as CT
practices may offer a common language for connecting problem solving across STEM disciplines.

Modeling as an Integrated Practice Across the Disciplines

This section examines how modeling serves as a natural component of integrated STEM learning.
The previous sections described how each discipline includes modeling (often using aspects of the
other disciplines), but modeling is also an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary
practice critical for integrated STEM learning (English, 2009). Three characteristics of modeling are
themes in all of the disciplines.

1. Modeling and models as connected to real phenomenon as abstractions or representations with

explanatory or descriptive relevant
2. Modeling process as cyclic or iterative (express, test, revise)
3. Modeling as an opportunity to express and to develop disciplinary knowledge and students’
ways of thinking

Models and modeling are paradoxically both about real, often tangible phenomena but also about the
abstract, non-tangible description of those phenomena. For prototyping in engineering, the model
is not the real object but a stand-in used for testing. For mathematics and computational thinking,
the model may be a program or a function that abstracts features of the real world. So, the modeling
process is about both creating a representation that is as close as possible to the real phenomenon
and also highlighting or emphasizing certain features and perhaps neglecting other features. For the
second feature, modeling and model creation are cyclic and iterative. Students are expected to test
and revise their own models when asked to design a model as part of the solution. This process
includes situations where students may compare different models, similar to situations in science and
engineering where new methods of measurement are regularly studied. The question is not about
whether a model is “correct” or “right” but whether the model is the best one for the situation at
hand.
The third feature, modeling as an opportunity for students to express and develop disciplinary
knowledge and develop their own ways of thinking, refers specifically to modeling as a learning
experience. Common across many of the examples is that modeling is an opportunity for students to
explore phenomena and create models that reveal their current thinking and understanding. Another
sense of the learning experience is that models as simulations allow students to develop understand-
ing of possibly intangible concepts (e.g., the solar system). The other way simulation is used is for
students to use a modeling environment to play with variables that cannot be quickly changed in the
real world (e.g., traffic simulations, environmental populations). Modeling as a learning experience,
including simulation, can bring phenomena into the classroom that might be impossible otherwise.

Discussion and Conclusions

As a product and a practice, modeling represents a method for considering learning in each discipline
while simultaneously integrating content. Modeling plays a role in each disciplinary practice and

229
 Margret A. Hjalmarson et al.

is also inherently an applied practice since it is largely focused on real-world phenomena. For this
reason, modeling and the creation of models are significant catalysts for integrated STEM teaching
and learning. However, we have open questions. This chapter has focused on disciplinary practices
and students’ learning of those practices via the integration of one or more aspects of STEM. Ques-
tions of teaching and teacher knowledge were not addressed. For secondary teachers who may teach
one STEM discipline, there are questions of how to coordinate integrated modeling activities across
disciplines or how to meaningfully represent multiple disciplinary practices. However, there are also
new areas like computational thinking or engineering that may be less familiar to many teachers at
any level. By presenting the disciplinary differences in models and modeling, we wanted to clarify
how the terms might be used differently, since a risk in integrated STEM activities is that subtle dis-
ciplinary differences are misinterpreted or overlooked. Teachers need to be aware of the disciplinary
differences in modeling practice but also of how modeling is inherently interdisciplinary.
Modeling can provide a natural opportunity to engage students in real-world problems that are
meaningful in their community contexts and are culturally sustaining. We have not explored the
affective components of modeling teaching, but others have researched how modeling can support
interest and engagement in STEM (Stohlmann, 2018). We have also not explored cultural relevance
or meaningfulness for students, but modeling and students’ development of models could be situated
in contexts that are personally meaningful to them (e.g., Cirillo, Bartell et al., 2016). As experiences
which prioritize students’ ways of thinking and eliciting students’ ideas, modeling should present
opportunities for learners to express their perspectives in meaningful ways that also support learning
STEM content.

References
Baek, H., & Schwarz, C. (2015). The influence of curriculum, instruction, technology, and social interactions on
two fifth-grade students’ epistemologies in modeling throughout a model-based curriculum unit. Journal of
Science Education & Technology, 24(2/3), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9532-6
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice:
Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
Bliss, K. M., Fowler, K. R., & Galluzzo, B. J. (2014). Math modeling: Getting started and getting solutions. Philadel-
phia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Blum, W., & Ferri, R. B. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical
Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45–58.
Bonotto, C. (2007). How to replace word problems with activities of realistic mathematical modelling. In P. L.
Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI
Study (pp. 185–192). Springer US. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387298207
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2016). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational think-
ing. Presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC.
Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and the future.
ZDM, 38(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655888
Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
25(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4
Capobianco, B. M., Nyquist, C., & Tyrie, N. (2013). Shedding light on engineering design. Science and Children,
50(5), 58–64.
Carberry, A. R., & McKenna, A. F. (2014). Exploring student conceptions of modeling and modeling uses in
engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20033
Carlson, M. A., Wickstrom, M. H., Burroughs, E. A., & Fulton, E. W. (2016). A case for mathematical modeling
in the elementary school classroom. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in math-
ematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 121–129). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cavey, L. O., & Champion, J. (2016). Learning secondary school mathematics through authentic mathematical
modeling tasks. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016:

230
 Learning Models and Modeling Across STEM

Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 131–142). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Cirillo, M., Bartell, T. G., & Wager, A. A. (2016). Teaching mathematics for social justice through mathemati-
cal modeling. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016:
Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 87–96). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Cirillo, M., Pelesko, J. A., Felton-Koestler, M. D., & Rubel, L. (2016). Perspectives on modeling in school
mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016:
Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 3–16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Common Core Standards Writing Team. (2013). Progressions for the common core standards in mathematics (draft)
high school, modeling. Tucson, AZ: Institute for Mathematics and Education, University of Arizona. Retrieved
from http://ime.math.arizona.edu/ progressions
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf
Cramer, K. (2003). Using a translation model for curriculum development and classroom instruction. In R. A.
Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving,
learning, and teaching (pp. 449–463). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Carvahlo Borba, M., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical
thinking: Information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization and experimentation. Springer US.
Retrieved from //www.springer.com/us/book/9780387242637
de Carvahlo Borba, M., Villarreal, M. E., & da Silva Soares, D. (2016). Modeling using data available on the
internet. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016:
Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 143–152). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2009). Promoting interdisciplinarity through mathematical modelling. ZDM, 41(1), 161–181.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0106-z
Fennema, E. (1972). Models and mathematics. The Arithmetic Teacher, 19(8), 635–640.
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1/2), 3–8.
Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during transitions in the
modelling process. ZDM, 38(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655886
Gann, C., Avineri, T., Graves, J., Hernadez, M., & Teague, D. (2016). Moving students from remembering to
thinking: The power of mathematical modeling. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspec-
tives in mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 97–106). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Geiger, V., Ärlebäck, J. B., & Frejd, P. (2016). Interpreting curricula to find opportunities for modeling: Case
studies from Australia and Sweden. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in math-
ematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 207–216). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Germain-Williams, T. L. (2014). Mathematical modeling in algebra textbooks at the onset of the common core state stand-
ards. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
pqdtglobal/docview/1537949683/abstract/49662AC9BCA547F5PQ/1
Gould, H. (2013). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematical modeling. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New
York, NY. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1367590532/abstract/18D205
C7E6514148PQ/1
Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). ‘Models of ’ versus ‘models for’. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 49–63. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4
Groshong, K. (2016). Different types of mathematical models. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.),
Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 17–23).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational
Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Hirsch, C. R., & McDuffie, A. R. (2016). Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling
and modeling mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide
computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022

231
 Margret A. Hjalmarson et al.

Kaiser, G. (2016). The teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research
in mathematics education (pp. 207–291). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics
education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652813
Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1260–1271. https://doi.
org/10.1086/508124
Lammi, M. D., & Denson, C. D. (2017). Modeling as an engineering habit of mind and practice. Advances in
Engineering Education, 6(1), 1–27.
Lege, G. F. (2003). A comparative case study of contrasting instructional approaches applied to the introduction of mathemati-
cal modeling. Ed.D. thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/305340621/abstract/78EC690054804A58PQ/1
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolution of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science.
In R. A. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics
problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 59–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). A developmental approach for supporting the epistemology of modeling. In
W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The
14th ICMI study (pp. 153–160). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_14
Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C., & Hurford, A. (Eds.). (2010). Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competen-
cies: ICTMA 13. Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from //www.springer.com/us/book/9781441905604
Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2007). What is distinctive in (our views about) models & modelling perspectives on math-
ematics problem solving, learning, and teaching? In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.),
Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 161–170). Boston, MA: Springer
US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_15
Lesh, R. A., & Zawojewski, J. S. (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 Publishing.
Meyer, D. (2015). Missing the promise of mathematical modeling. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(8), 578–583.
https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.108.8.0578
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework
for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Educa-
tion Research ( J-PEER), 4(1), 1–13.
Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The
role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1),
141–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20004
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the pros-
pects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12635/
engineering-in-k-12-education-understanding-the-status-and-improving
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washing-
ton, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core
ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/
a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts
National Research Council. (2013). The mathematical sciences in 2025. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (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. 3–32). Boston, MA:
Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_1
Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scien-
tific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philoso-
phy and science teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_36
Perrenet, J., & Zwaneveld, B. (2012). The many faces of the mathematical modeling cycle. Journal of Mathematical
Modelling and Application, 1(6), 3–21.
Phillips, E. D. (2016). Introduction. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics
education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 25–26). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.

232
 Learning Models and Modeling Across STEM

Pollak, H. (2003). A history of the teaching of modeling. In G. M. A. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of
school mathematics (pp. 647–669). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pollak, H. (2016). Foreword. In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics edu-
cation 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. vii–viii). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Schwarz, C. V., Ke, L., Lee, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2014). Developing mechanistic model-based explanations of
phenomena: Case studies of two fifth grade students’ epistemologies in practice over time. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Boulder, CO.: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., . . . Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a
learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learn-
ers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scien-
tific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research
Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Sinclair, N. (2016). TouchCounts: Visual, auditory, haptic, and symbolic models for numbers and operations.
In C. R. Hirsch & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education 2016: Mathematical
modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 27–36). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Steen, L. A., Turner, R., & Burkhardt, H. (2007). Developing mathematical literacy. In W. Blum, P. L. Gal-
braith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study
(pp. 285–294). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_30
Stohlmann, M. (2018). A vision for future work to focus on the “M” in integrated STEM. School Science and
Mathematics, 118(7), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12301
Tam, K. C. (2011). Modeling in the common core state standards. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers Col-
lege, 2(1). Retrieved from http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/matheducation/article/view/636
Tank, K. M., Moore, T. J., Dorie, B. L., Gajdzik, E., Terri Sanger, M., Rynearson, A. M., & Mann, E. F. (2018).
Engineering in early elementary classrooms through the integration of high-quality literature, design, and
STEM+C content. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 175–201). Singapore:
Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_9
Tran, D., & Dougherty, B. J. (2014). Authenticity of mathematical modeling. The Mathematics Teacher, 107(9),
672–678. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.107.9.0672
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Exton, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger
Publishers.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining com-
putational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1),
127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H.-S. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruc-
tion based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580–601. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science
attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jee.20026
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a
new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.20259
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, 366, 3717–3725.
Zbiek, R. M., & Conner, A. (2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modeling as a context for
deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(1),
89–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9002-4

233