Advertisement

Student Connections between Algebraic and Graphical Polynomial Representations in the Context of a Polynomial Relation

  • Kwaku Adu-Gyamfi
  • Michael J. Bossé
  • Kayla Chandler
Article

Abstract

When establishing connections among representations of associated mathematical concepts, students encounter different difficulties and successes along the way. The purpose of this study was to uncover information about and gain greater insight into how student processes connections. Pre-calculus students were observed and interviewed while performing a task that required connections among graphical and algebraic representations of a polynomial relation. Their reasoning and processes on the task were examined. This revealed more detailed information about the nature of their connections and misconceptions. The study reveals different types of student connections among graphical and algebraic representations.

Keywords

Connections Conversion Polynomial Representations Representation register Treatment 

References

  1. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Stiff, L., & Bossé, M. J. (2012). Lost in translation: Examining translation errors 10.1007/s10763-016-9730-1 associated with mathematical representations. School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 159-170.Google Scholar
  2. Adu-Gyamfi, K. & Bossé, M. J. (2014). Processes and reasoning in representations of linear functions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 167-192.Google Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ainsworth, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Chandler, K. (2014). Students’ differentiated translation processes. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm
  7. Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gagatsis, A. & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldin, G. A. (1987). Cognitive representational systems for mathematical problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125–145). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Goldin, G. A. & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM Yearbook (pp. 1–23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Hitt, F. (1998). Difficulties in the articulation of different representations linked to the concept of function. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 123-134.Google Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J. (1988). A theory of developing competence with written mathematical symbols. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollar, J. & Norwood, K. (1999). The effects of a graphing-approach intermediate algebra curriculum on students' understanding of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation process in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 27–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kaput, J. J. (1987a). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Kaput, J. J. (1987b). Toward a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 159–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Keller, B. A. & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian connection: an exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krutetskii, V. (1976). Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.), J. Teller, Trans. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lowe, R. K. (1994). Selectivity in diagrams; reading beyond the lines. Educational Psychology, 14, 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  25. Olson, D. & Campbell, R. (1993). Constructing representations. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representations in children: development and use (pp. 11–26). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Pratt, C. & Garton, F. A. (1993). Systems of representation in children. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children: development and use (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Punch, K. F. (2000). Developing effective research proposals. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Steinbring, H. (1997). Epistemological investigation of classroom interaction in elementary mathematics teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 49–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steinbring, H. (2006). What makes a sign a mathematical sign?: An epistemological perspective on mathematical interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 133–162.Google Scholar
  30. Tabachnek, H. J. M. & Simon, H. A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: An analysis of a simple, realistic multiple representation learning task. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. A. P. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 197–236). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate mathematics curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1 (Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  32. von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwaku Adu-Gyamfi
    • 1
  • Michael J. Bossé
    • 2
  • Kayla Chandler
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Science, and Instruction Technology Education, College of EducationEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  3. 3.Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics EducationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations