Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 108–120 | Cite as

(Fish) food for thought: Authority shifts in the interaction between mathematics and reality

  • Irit Peled


This theoretical paper explores the decision-making process involved in modelling and mathematizing situations during problem solving. Specifically, it focuses on the authority behind these choices (i.e., what or who determines the chosen mathematical models). We show that different types of situations involve different sources of authority, thereby creating different degrees of freedom for the problem solver engaged in the modelling process. It also means that mathematics plays different roles in these problems and situations. This epistemological analysis on the meaning of modelling implies that we should reconsider the mathematical status of realistic solutions and raises questions on the validity of some traditional choices of mathematical models and their use in diagnosing children’s conceptions. It also suggests constructing modelling tasks by choosing a certain variety of situations that might lead to a better understanding of the roles of mathematics.


Mathematical Concept Problem Solver Modelling Task Coalitional Game Proportion Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aumann, R. (1999). On the matter of the man with three wives.Moriah, 22(3/4), 98–107 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, R., & Maschler, M. (1985). Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud.Journal of Economic Theory, 36, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonotto, C. (2007). How to replace word problems with activities of realistic mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, M. Niss, & H-W Henn (Eds.),Modelling and applications in mathematics education. The 14 th ICMI Study (New ICMI Studies Series) (Vol. 10, pp. 185–192). New York:Springer.Google Scholar
  4. De Bock, D., Van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: An in-depth study of the nature and irresistibility of secondary school students’ errors.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria (2007).Mathematics Developmental Continuum P-10. Retrieved April 16, 2009 from Scholar
  6. Galbraith, P. (2007). Beyond the low hanging fruit. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, M. Niss, & H-W Henn (Eds.),Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14 th ICMI Study (New ICMI Studies Series) (Vol. 10, pp. 79–88). New York:Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Greer, B. (1993). The mathematical modelling perspective on wor(l)d problems.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12(2), 239–250.Google Scholar
  8. Hart, K. (1981).Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London:John Murray.Google Scholar
  9. Hefendehl-Hebeker, L. (1991). Negative numbers: Obstacles in their evolution from intuitive to intellectual constructs.For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
  10. Koirala, H. P. (1999). Teaching mathematics using everyday context: What if academic mathematics is lost? In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.),Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 161–168). Haifa, Israel:PME.Google Scholar
  11. Lo, J., & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: A story of a fifth grader.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Misailidou, C., & Williams, J. (2003). Diagnostic assessment of children’s proportional reasoning.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(3), 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, M. Niss, & H-W Henn (Eds.)Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14 th ICMI Study (New ICMI Studies Series) (Vol. 10, pp. 3–33). New York:Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Piaget, J., Grize, J. B., Szeminska, A., & Bang, V. (1977).Epistemology and psychology of functions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. Rivest, R. L., Shamir, A., & Adleman, L. (1978). A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems.Communications of the ACM, 21(2), 120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartz, J. (1988). Intensive quantity and referent transforming arithmetic operations. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.),Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 41–52). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.Google Scholar
  18. Stillman, G., Brown, J., & Galbraith, P, (2008). Research into the teaching and learning of applications and modelling in Australia. In H. Forgasz, A. Barkatas, & A. Bishop (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australia 2004–2007 (pp. 141–164). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Tourniaire, F. (1986). Proportions in elementary school.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(4), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irit Peled
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations