skip to main content
10.1145/3556787.3556802acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswipsceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Teaching Mathematical Modeling with Computing Technology: Presentation of a Course based on Evacuations

Published:31 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mathematical modeling is considered a crucial skills, both in modern life and STEM education. Prior research has identified the relevance of working on complex and authentic modelings problems in education. However, up to this point, little of the courses proposed in this area explicitly focus on the role of comprehensive computing technology during mathematical modeling. We bridge this gap by presenting a design and ready-to-use technology for an interdisciplinary course that introduces students to mathematical modeling of complex systems with comprehensive technology. In the course, students are introduced to grid automatons as basic computing model. Furthermore, they can increase their knowledge of mathematical modeling and algorithmic thinking. In this paper, we develop a didactic structure for such a course and present educational technology developed to support this structure. The structure itself consists of three simulation environments and is based on the following problem: “How can we estimate the time it takes to evacuate our school (without an experiment)?”. We describe the structure of the course and the simulation environments in more details and outline potential exercises for such a course.

References

  1. Michal Armoni, Susan Rodger, Moshe Vardi, and Rakesh Verma. 2006. automata theory: its relevance to computer science students and course contents. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. PD Carey. 1996. DISPERSE: a cellular automaton for predicting the distribution of species in a changed climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters(1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yimin Chen, Xia Li, Xiaoping Liu, Hu Huang, and Shifa Ma. 2019. Simulating urban growth boundaries using a patch-based cellular automaton with economic and ecological constraints. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 33, 1(2019), 55–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Lucian Ciolan and Laura Elena Ciolan. 2014. Two perspectives, same reality? How authentic is learning for students and for their teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 142 (2014), 24–28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Andrew Csizmadia, Paul Curzon, Mark Dorling, Simon Humphreys, Thomas Ng, Cynthia Selby, and John Woollard. 2015. Computational thinking-A guide for teachers. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gabriele Di Stefano and Alfredo Navarra. 2012. Scintillae: How to Approach Computing Systems by Means of Cellular Automata. In Cellular Automata.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Helen M Doerr, Jonas B Ärlebäck, and Morten Misfeldt. 2017. Representations of modelling in mathematics education. In Mathematical modelling and applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rita Maria Zorzenon Dos Santos and Sérgio Coutinho. 2001. Dynamics of HIV infection: A cellular automata approach. Physical review letters 87, 16 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerald Futschek. 2006. Algorithmic thinking: the key for understanding computer science. In International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and perspectives. Springer, 159–168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Vince Geiger. 2011. Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of innovative practices with technology and mathematical modelling. Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (2011), 305–314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert Greefrath, Corinna Hertleif, and Hans-Stefan Siller. 2018. Mathematical modelling with digital tools—a quantitative study on mathematising with dynamic geometry software. ZDM 50, 1 (2018), 233–244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gilbert Greefrath, Hans-Stefan Siller, and Jens Weitendorf. 2011. Modelling considering the influence of technology. Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (2011), 315–329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. André Greubel and Hans-Stefan Siller. 2022. Learning about black-boxes: A mathematical-technological model. In Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Andre Greubel, Hans-Stefan Siller, and Martin Hennecke. 2020. Teaching Simulation Literacy with Evacuations. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 200–214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andre Greubel, Hans-Stefan Siller, and Martin Hennecke. 2021. EvaWeb: A Web App for Simulating the Evacuation of Buildings with a Grid Automaton. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lam Bick Har. 2013. Authentic learning. The Active Classroom The Hong Kong Institute of Education (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyewon Jang. 2016. Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of science education and technology 25, 2 (2016), 284–301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Gabriele Kaiser. 2014. Mathematical Modelling and Applications in Education. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 396–404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabriele Kaiser, Martin Bracke, Simone Göttlich, and Christine Kaland. 2013. Authentic Complex Modelling Problems in Mathematics Education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02270-3_29Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanika, Shampa Chakraverty, and Pinaki Chakraborty. 2020. Tools and techniques for teaching computer programming: A review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49, 2 (2020), 170–198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jarkko Kari. 2005. Theory of cellular automata: A survey. Theoretical computer science 334, 1-3 (2005), 3–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemont B Kier, Paul G Seybold, and Chao-Kun Cheng. 2005. Modeling chemical systems using cellular automata. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Richard Lesh and Guershon Harel. 2003. Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical thinking and learning(2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang Li, Maoyin Chen, Zhan Dou, Xiaoping Zheng, Yuan Cheng, and Ahmed Mebarki. 2019. A review of cellular automata models for crowd evacuation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 526 (2019), 120752.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Katja Maaß. 2006. What are modelling competencies?ZDM 38, 2 (2006), 113–142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Anthony D McKenzie, Christopher K Morgan, Kerry W Cochrane, Geoff K Watson, and David W Roberts. 2002. Authentic learning. In Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference. Citeseer, 426–433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kai Nagel and Michael Schreckenberg. 1992. A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. Journal de physique I 2, 12 (1992), 2221–2229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jan L Plass, Roxana Moreno, and Roland Brünken. 2010. Cognitive load theory. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchel Resnick, Brad Myers, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Ben Shneiderman, Randy Pausch, Ted Selker, and Mike Eisenberg. 2005. Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Stefan Ruzika, Lynn Knippertz, and Eva Rexigel. 2019. Simulation von Evakuierungen auf Grundlage zellulärer Automaten. Technical Report. Uni. of Kaiserslautern.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Stefan Ruzika, Hans-Stefan Siller, and Martin Bracke. 2017. Evakuierungsszenarien in Modellierungswochen. In Neue Materialien für einen realitätsbezogenen Mathematikunterricht 3. Springer, 181–190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Cynthia Selby and John Woollard. 2013. Computational thinking: the developing definition. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hans-Stefan Siller and Gilbert Greefrath. 2010. Mathematical modelling in class regarding to technology. In Proceedings of the sixth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. 2136–2145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas Staubitz, Ralf Teusner, Christoph Meinel, and Nishanth Prakash. 2016. Cellular Automata as basis for programming exercises in a MOOC on Test Driven Development. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2016.7851824Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Antonio J. Tomeu Hardasmal and Alberto G. Salguero. 2020. Teaching Parallelism With Gamification in Cellular Automaton Environments. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 15, 1(2020), 34–42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Jeanette Wing. 2011. Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine 6(2011), 20–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Teaching Mathematical Modeling with Computing Technology: Presentation of a Course based on Evacuations

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          WiPSCE '22: Proceedings of the 17th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
          October 2022
          130 pages
          ISBN:9781450398534
          DOI:10.1145/3556787

          Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 31 October 2022

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          WiPSCE '22 Paper Acceptance Rate14of41submissions,34%Overall Acceptance Rate104of279submissions,37%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)101
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format