Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Constructing coordinate graphs: Representing corresponding ordered values with variation in two-dimensional space

  • 99 Accesses

Abstract

Coordinate graphs of time-series data have been significant in the history of statistical graphing and in recent school mathematics curricula. A survey task to construct a graph to represent data about temperature change over time was administered to 133 students in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9. Four response levels described the degree to which students transformed a table of data into a coordinate graph.Nonstatistical responses did not display the data, showing either the context or a graph form only.Single Aspect responses showed data along a single dimension, either in a table of corresponding values, or a graph of a single variable.Inadequate Coordinate responses showed bivariate data in two-dimensional space but inadequately showed either spatial variation or correspondence of values.Appropriate Coordinate graphs displayed both correspondence and variation of values along ordered axes, either as a bar graph of discrete values or as a line graph of continuous variation. These levels of coordinate graph production were then related to levels of response obtained by the same students on two other survey tasks: one involving speculative data generation from a verbal statement of covariation, and the other involving verbal and numerical graph interpretation from a coordinate scattergraph. Features of graphical representations that may prompt student development at different levels are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ainley, J. (1995). Re-viewing graphing: Traditional and intuitive approaches.For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(2), 10–16.

  2. Australian Education Council. (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Author and Curriculum Corporation.

  3. Australian Education Council. (1994).Mathematics — A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne: Author and Curriculum Corporation.

  4. Bell, A., Brekke, G., & Swan, M. (1987). Diagnostic teaching: 4 Graphical interpretation.Mathematics Teaching, 119, 56–59.

  5. Beniger, J. R., & Robyn D. L. (1978). Quantitative graphics in statistics: A brief history.American Statistician, 32, 1–10.

  6. Ben-Zvi, D., & Arcavi, A. (2001). Junior high school students’ construction of meanings for data representations.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 35–65.

  7. Biderman, A. D. (1990). The Playfair enigma: Toward understanding the development of schematic representation from origins to the present day.Information Design Journal, 6(1), 3–25.

  8. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

  9. Brasell, H. M., & Rowe, M. B. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students.School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 63–70.

  10. Chick, H. L., & Watson, J. M. (2001). Data representation and interpretation by primary school students working in groups.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 91–111.

  11. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 77–87.

  12. Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 382–393.

  13. Curcio, F. R. (2001).Developing data-graph comprehension in grades K through 8 (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  14. Funkhouser, H. G. (1937). Historical development of the graphical representation of statistical data.Orisis, 3, 269–404.

  15. Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Langrall, C. W., Mooney, E. S., Perry, B., & Putt, I. J. (2000). A framework for characterizing children’s statistical thinking.Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 269–307.

  16. Kerslake, D. (1977). The understanding of graphs.Mathematics in Schools, 6(2), 22–25.

  17. Konold, C. (2002). Alternatives to scatterplots. In B. Phillips (Ed.),Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics: Developing a statistically literate society, Cape Town, South Africa [CD-ROM]. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

  18. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: Stability and change in students’ alternative conceptions.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 229–263.

  19. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  20. Ministry of Education. (1992).Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Author.

  21. Moritz, J. B. (2000). Graphical representations of statistical associations by upper primary students. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.),Mathematics education beyond 2000: (Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2, pp. 440–447). Perth: MERGA.

  22. Moritz, J. B. (2002). Study times and test scores: What students’ graphs show.Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 7(1), 24–31.

  23. Moritz, J. B. (2003). Interpreting a scattergraph displaying counterintuitive covariation. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.),Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity. (Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 523–530). Sydney: MERGA.

  24. Moritz, J. B. (in press). Reasoning about covariation. In J. Garfield & D. Ben-Zvi (Eds.),The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  26. Nemirovsky, R. (1996). A functional approach to algebra: Two issues that emerge. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.),Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 295–313). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  27. Nemirovsky, R., & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogeneous spaces.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 67–102.

  28. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice?.Science Education, 81(1), 91–106.

  29. Sherin, B. L. (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 399–441.

  30. Tilling, L. (1975). Early experimental graphs.British Journal for the History of Science, 8, 193–213.

  31. Tufte, E. R. (1983).The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.

  32. Wainer, H., & Velleman, P. F. (2001). Statistical graphics: Mapping the pathways of science.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 305–335.

  33. Watson, J. M. (2000). Statistics in context.Mathematics Teacher, 93(1), 54–58.

  34. Wavering, M. J. (1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5), 373–379.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moritz, J. Constructing coordinate graphs: Representing corresponding ordered values with variation in two-dimensional space. Math Ed Res J 15, 226–251 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217381

Download citation

Keywords

  • Line Graph
  • Graph Production
  • Graph Task
  • Primary Student
  • Graph Space