Why is mathematical modeling so difficult

for students?
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2021, 060026 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062790
Published Online: 17 October 2018

Rafiq Zulkarnaen

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Learning to teach mathematical modelling in secondary and tertiary education

AIP Conference Proceedings 1863, 320015 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4992496

The impact of mathematical models of teaching materials on square and rectangle concepts
to improve students’ mathematical connection ability and mathematical disposition in middle
school
AIP Conference Proceedings 1848, 040010 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4983948

The effectiveness of the realistic mathematics education approach for self-efficacy

AIP Conference Proceedings 2021, 060032 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062796

AIP Conference Proceedings 2021, 060026 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062790 2021, 060026

© 2018 Author(s).
Corrigendum: “Why is mathematical modeling so difficult for students?,” Rafiq Zulkarnaen, AIP Conf.
Proc. 2021, 060026 (2018)

At the request of all authors of the paper an updated version of this article was published on 10
December 2018. The original version of this article supplied to AIP Publishing contained an error in the
manuscript. In Acknowledgments the text originally appeared as, “We wish to thank DPRM Universitas
Indonesia through Hibah Publikasi Internasional Terindeks untuk tugas Akhir mahasiswa UI (PITTA
2018)”, but the correct sentence is “We wish to thank the Directorate of Research and Community
Service, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (KEMENRISTEK DIKTI), Republic of
Indonesia who has funded this study in Doctoral Dissertation Research scheme.
 Why is Mathematical Modeling so difficult for students?
Rafiq Zulkarnaen1,a)
1
Department of Mathematics Education, Singaperbangsa University of Karawang, Jalan HS. Ronggowaluyo,
Karawang 41361, West Java, Indonesia.
a)
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. A mathematical model is an external representation of an interesting aspect of the problem being solved, and
can be formulated using numerical expressions or formulas, diagrams, graphs or geometric representations, algebraic
equations, tables, etcetera. Mathematical modeling will produce a mathematical model that is a representation in the
mathematical domain of the problem situation. Through mathematical modeling, students will learn to use various
mathematical representations as well as apply mathematical methods and procedures correctly in solving real world
problems. The purpose of this research is to investigate the schematic errors made by the students in tenth grade by using
the results of the students’ responses to the items of a mathematical modeling test. The subjects involved were 34 tenth
grade students, picked through purposive sampling. The results show that most of the students’ responses in
mathematizing real-world situations and interpreting mathematical models with real-world situations fall into the
categories of incomplete schema but with errors (ISbWE), incomplete schema with no errors (ISwNE), using irrelevant
procedure (UIP), and complete schema with errors (CSwE). The results indicate that most of the students have difficulty
in applying all aspects of the mathematical modeling process.

Keywords: demathematization, learning difficulties, mathematization

INTRODUCTION
The notion of mathematical modeling in school is different from the way it is understood by practicing
mathematical modelers.1 In mathematics education, mathematical modeling has the purpose of teaching
mathematics and mathematical modeling is a way to teach mathematics.2 Teachers play an important role in
fostering students’ learning of mathematical modeling and students learn mathematics through engagement in
mathematical modeling.1 Mathematical modeling (MM) involves translation from a real-world problem or situation
to a mathematical model. Students work with that mathematical model and use it to understand the problem, solving
the real-world problem;3,4,5 MM has been incorporated into the curricula of systems of education all over the world.6
MM is the connectivity between a problem set in a context outside of mathematics and the world of mathematics.
Both the context and the mathematics are seen as brought together in the thinking of the student when they engage
in: mathematization, in which relevant mathematics that can lead to a solution, or sense-making, of the problem set
in a particular context is identified. Interpreting or making sense (de-mathematization) of their mathematical
solution is appropiate to the mathematical problem in terms of the context of the problem situation.7
Referring to expert opinion as stated above, the first step in MM is that students must understand the problem
situation. This requires making assumptions about the real-world problems, analyzing the real-world situation,
simplifying, identifying the variables, selecting from the given information, and contextualizing. The next step is
mathematization, that is, the process of translating a real-world problem into a mathematical model.
Mathematization requires the selection of appropriate mathematical concepts or procedures in representing real-
world problems in a formulation by using numerical expressions or formulas, diagrams, graphs or geometric
representations, algebraic equations, tables, etc.
The suitability of mathematical models to the real world is an interpretation that reconnects the produced
mathematical models with the real world (de-mathematization). The last stage in the mathematical modeling process

The 8th Annual Basic Science International Conference

AIP Conf. Proc. 2021, 060026-1–060026-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062790
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1739-7/$30.00

060026-1
is validation. Validation involves examining the assumptions and limitations of the mathematical models used in
solving the problem. Using symbolic algebra to represent and determine quadratic equations and functions is one of
the learning outcomes within the standard content for the tenth grade in the national mathematics curriculum in
Indonesia.
Developing a conceptual and procedural understanding of quadratics is critical to students’ learning trajectories
in mathematics as they progress to working with higher-degree polynomials and rational functions. Therefore, this
study aims to analyze the students’ difficulties in solving mathematical modeling test on equations and quadratic
functions.

METHODS
This study is an exploratory study with a qualitative approach that has produced descriptive data in the form of
an idea about the type and location of students’ errors on a mathematical modeling test. The collection of data
analysis was in a narrative and visual form, the data analysis was performed inductively, and the researcher avoided
early conclusions. The subjects involved in this study were 34 tenth grade students, taken purposively from one
school in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. To analyze the students' responses in taking a mathematical modeling (MM)
test, they were given five questions that included aspects of students' ability to identify problem situations, to create
mathematical models from a problem situation, to work with the mathematics, to interpret the solutions, and to
verify the mathematical models on equations and quadratic functions.
The instrument of the mathematical modeling test refers to, which has a validity of 0.70 and reliability of 0.87.8
The analysis of the students’ errors in solving MM refers to, which conceptualize the errors in carrying out a
strategic schema.9 The are five categorical errors to be identified: No Solution (NS), Using Irrelevant Procedure
(UIP), Incomplete Schema with No Errors (ISwNE), Incomplete Schema but With Errors (ISbWE), and Complete
Schema With Errors (CSwE).
TABLE 1. Schematic Error to Analysis Students’ Responses in MM-test
Category Description
No Solution (NS) Refers to a solution which has no written responses or no solution is presented
Using Irrelevant Procedures Students is unable to retrieve any relevant knowledge or information and, if any,
(UIP) apply it to work out the solution.
Incomplete Schema with No Only some correct steps of the strategy are presented by students in the solution.
Errors (ISwNE)
Incomplete Schema But With Apart from demonstrating incomplete schema or unable to connect all relevant
Errors (ISbWE) schema, problem solvers also make other types of specific errors such as
encoding of information and subtraction of numbers
Complete Schema with Errors This type of schematic error arises when an error is made in computation or
(CSwE) encoding of information although a problem solver is able to connect all
relevant schemas to the problem's requirement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The aim of this research is to investigate the schematic errors made by students in taking a mathematical
modeling test in the context of equations and quadratic functions. The results for these students’ schematic errors are
presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Result of Schematic Error Students’ Responses in MM-test
Aspect of %
Mathematical Modeling Ability NS UIP ISwNE ISbWE CSwE
Identify the Problem Situation 2.94 11.76 18.98 20.46 12.45
Creating Mathematical Model 4.56 17.65 2.94 14.71 22.34
Working with Mathematics 3.20 11.76 8.82 11.76 14.23
Verifying Mathematical Model 14.71 29.41 2.53 8.82 11.32
Interpreting Matematical Model 5.88 23.53 35.29 17.65 12.45
Interpreting Matematical Solution 2.94 17.65 11.76 44.12 22.13

060026-2
 As indicated in Table 2, it is clear that students had difficulties in solving the mathematical modeling, as seen
from the significant number of incorrect answers as well as the significant percentage of errors in the categories of
No Solution (NS), Using Irrelevant Procedure (UIP), Incomplete Schema with No Errors (ISwNE), Incomplete
Schema but with Errors (ISbWE), and Complete Schema with Errors (CSwE). It is also to be noted that interpreting
the mathematical model and solution appeared to be the most difficult part of the mathematical modeling: verifying
the mathematical model. Of all aspects of mathematical modeling, it is found that most students used irrelevant
mathematical procedures to solve the problems.
There are still students who are unable to answer the MM test, although students were given answers but they
still showed some errors in answering the given question. Most of the students' inability to verify the mathematical
models is shown by their giving either no answer or no solution. Aspects of the interpretation of mathematical
models and the verification of a mathematical model tend to be performed by students using irrelevant procedures,
and it did not guide students to the correct solution.
The following figure provides some examples of students’ responses in the mathematical modeling test.

From the computer analysis of highway simulation,

it was obtained function,

, where is the
height and is length the highway.
Is the quadratic function resulted from the computer simulation is relevant with the actual highway? If
yes, provide the rationales! If not, make a quadratic function relevant to the actual highway and its
rationales as well!
FIGURE 1. Question for aspect of verifying of mathematical modeling.

The expected students’ answers are correct and they provided reasoning between quadratic function from the
computer simulation with real-world problem situation. The students are also able to correct the quadratic function
generated from the computer simulation. Some students tried to verify the mathematical models using routine
procedures, such as the symmetry axis, the vertex, and the intersection points on the x-axis, but the procedure is not
for solving the problem (see figure 1).

FIGURE 2. An example of a student's responses in verifying a mathematical model.

Referring to figure 2, it shows that students still used the Using Irrelevant Procedures (UIP) in solving the
problem; they also used the concept of vertex in quadratic functions in verifying mathematical models that is
incorrect and does not yield the correct solution. Therefore, students’ responses presented in figure 2 are categorized
into the Using Irrelevant Procedures (UIP). It seems that novices possessed a much smaller and more poorly

060026-3
structured knowledge base, and found it difficult to know the relevant information, to know what type of problem
they are dealing with, and to know which techniques and procedures to apply. Most of the students still have
difficulty not only in reading and understanding the modeling task, but also in remembering the mathematical
knowledge needed to be able to solve the problems.
The figure below measures the students' ability to identify the problem situation, create a mathematical model,
and work with the mathematics.

Dad bought a 20-meter barbed wire which use to fence the

backyard.

How to determine the area of the small garden? Change problem

situation to mathematical form, and calculate the maximum area of the
small garden!

FIGURE 3. Question for aspect of identify problem situations, creating mathematical model, and working with mathematics.

Considering Table 2, it is known that most of the students’ answers fall into the categories Incomplete Schema
but with Errors (IsbWE), incomplete schema with no errors (ISWnE), or complete schema with errors (CswE). In
the following figure, there are several examples of students’ answers in identifying the problem situation, creating
mathematical models, and working with mathematics.

FIGURE 4. An example of a student's responses in category of incomplete schema with no error (ISwNE).

Based on the results of the analysis of the students’ answers as presented in Figure 4, the students give a less
precise answer, although with the correct steps. This is due to their lack of conceptual and procedural knowledge.
Therefore, the knowledge of the mathematical structure of the problem, in turn, can facilitate the activation of the
relevant schemata or patterns that would guide the representation of the problem, which is necessary for solving the
problem.10

FIGURE 5. An example of a student's responses in category of using irrelevant procedures (UIP).

060026-4
 Based on Figure 5, when students do not understand a problem, they are likely to make a guess without having
any mathematical thinking process. Therefore, the students answer Using Irrelevant Procedures (UIP), because they
lack the knowledge about the principles, rules, and procedures. Most of the students still have difficulties not only in
understanding the modeling task, but also in remembering the mathematical knowledge needed to be able to solve it.
The students’ answers fall into the categories of incomplete schema with no error (ISwNE) and incomplete
schema with error (IsbWE), which latter means that it is correct in the beginning of the solving strategy, by using a
wall to reduce the wire for the fences. However, in solving the problem, there are some mistakes which are caused
by misunderstood concepts and procedures. Students also have considerable difficulties in understanding and
structuring the correct problem situation and making the related assumptions in order to simplify the situation so as
to make it workable,11 students have difficulty in moving from the real world to the mathematical world.12
Students' difficulties in completing mathematical modeling tasks lead to wrong answers. These errors are due to
the confusion of concept and procedure, negligence of the conditions of the formulas and the given fact; a lack of the
concept of a quadratic function, and an inability to transform the problem; there are also psychological factors, such
as anxiety and stress. Previous research concludes that the most frequent errors made by students in using
factorization is probably due to the lack of emphasis by teachers on teaching the factorization method. Teachers
must ensure that the teaching of mathematical concepts is balanced with the arithmetic skills.13

CONCLUSION
Based on the data analysis, the Schematic Errors of students’ responses on the MM test shows various results. In
identifying the problem situation, more students (20.46%) tend to use incomplete schema with no errors (ISwNE).
On the other hand, in creating a mathmatical model and in working with the mathematical aspect, some students
prefer the Complete schema with errors (CSwE) with its percentage of 22.34 % and 14.23%. However, in verifying
the mathematical model, students tend to apply an irrelevant procedure (UIP) with 29.41%. In the last, the
interpretation of the mathematical model, more students (35.29%) prefer to use an incomplete schema with no errors
(ISwNE), while in interpreting the mathematical solution, more students tend to use an incomplete schema but with
errors (ISbWE), at a percentage of 44.1%. The results show that most students’ responses in mathematizing real-
world situations and interpreting mathematical models with real-world situations are more relevant to the category
of incomplete schema but with errors (ISbWE), incomplete schema with no errors (ISwNE), using irrelevant
procedure (UIP), and complete schema with errors (CSwE). Thus, it can be concluded that sudents still have
difficulties in applying all the aspects of the mathematical modeling process. In addition, teachers should understand
the students’ difficulty, because these will affect teachers’ instructional planning and the design of their assessments.
This research suggests that the development of students’ conceptual understanding and procedural understanding
and also mathematical reasoning must be examined more closely before teachers assign mathematical modeling
tasks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the Directorate of Research and Community Service, Ministry of Research, Technology
and Higher Education (KEMENRISTEK DIKTI), Republic of Indonesia who has funded this study in Doctoral
Dissertation Research scheme.

REFERENCES
1. J. Cai, M. Crillo, J. A. Pelesko, R. B. Ferri, M. Borba, V. Geiger, G. Stillman, L. D. English, G. Wake, G.
Kaiser and O. N. Kwon, “Mathematical modelling in school education: Mathematical cognitive, curricular,” in
Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36, PME-NA, edited by Liljedahl et al. (Vancouver,
Canada, 2014), pp. 145-172.
2. P. Galbraith, J. Math. Model. Appl. 1, 3-16 (2012).
3. R. Crouch and C. Haines, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 35, 197-206 (2004).
4. W. Blum and R. B. Ferri, J. Math. Model Appl. 1, 45-58 (2009).
5. M. Blomhöj and T. H. Jensen, Teach. Math. Its Appl. 22, 123-139 (2003).

060026-5
6. L. N. Hoe and N. K. E. Dawn, “Introduction: Mathematical Modelling Outreach in Singapore,” in
Mathematical Modelling: from Theory to Practice, edited by L. N. Hoe and N. K. E. Dawn (World Scientific
Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, Singapore, 2010), pp. 1-17.
7. G. Wake, Teach. Math. Appl. 35, 172–186 (2016).
8. R. Zulkarnaen, “Pengembangan instrumen-tes kemampuan pemodelan matematis,” in Ethnomathematics dan
Technoplanner, Teori dan Aplikasinya: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika
(2nd Senatik) Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang (Semarang,
Indonesia, 2017), pp. 227–232.
9. H. K. Fong, “Schematic model for categorizing children’s errors in mathematics,” in The Proceedings of the
Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Ithaca,
NY, 1993), pp. 1–28.
10. A. Jitendra, C. M. Dipipi and N. Perron-jones, J. Spec. Educ. 36, pp. 23–38 (2002).
11. S. Schaap, P. Vos and M. Goedhart, “Students overcoming blockages while building a mathematical model:
exploring a framework,” in Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling, edited by G. Kaiser et
al. (Springer, New York, NY, 2011), pp. 137–146.
12. M. Sol, J. Giménez and N. Rosich, “Project modelling routes in 12 to 16 -year-old pupils,” in Trends in
teaching and learning of mathematical modelling, edited by G. Kaiser et al. (Springer, New York, NY, 2011),
pp. 231–242.
13. E. Zakaria, Ibrahim and S. M. Maat, Int. Educ. Stud. 3, 105–110 (2010).

060026-6