Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 169–187 | Cite as

A framework for mathematics graphical tasks: the influence of the graphic element on student sense making

  • Tom Lowrie
  • Carmel M. Diezmann
  • Tracy Logan
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Graphical tasks have become a prominent aspect of mathematics assessment. From a conceptual stance, the purpose of this study was to better understand the composition of graphical tasks commonly used to assess students’ mathematics understandings. Through an iterative design, the investigation described the sense making of 11–12-year-olds as they decoded mathematics tasks which contained a graphic. An ongoing analysis of two phases of data collection was undertaken as we analysed the extent to which various elements of text, graphics, and symbols influenced student sense making. Specifically, the study outlined the changed behaviour (and performance) of the participants as they solved graphical tasks that had been modified with respect to these elements. We propose a theoretical framework for understanding the composition of a graphical task and identify three specific elements which are dependently and independently related to each other, namely: the graphic; the text; and the symbols. Results indicated that although changes to the graphical tasks were minimal, a change in student success and understanding was most evident when the graphic element was modified. Implications include the need for test designers to carefully consider the graphics embedded within mathematics tasks since the elements within graphical tasks greatly influence student understanding.

Keywords

Graphical tasks Assessment Mathematics sense making Task modification 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council (Grant #DP0453366). We would like to thank Jane Greenlees for her contribution to the data collection and KimWoodland for her critical editing. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Logan and Greenlees 2008).

References

  1. Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (1999, May). Curriculum demands and question difficulty. Paper presented at the International Association of Educational Assessment conference, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representation in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1997, October). Numeracy = everyone’s business. Report for the numeracy education strategy development conference: Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Berends, I. E., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: Effects of increased cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 17, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics (W.J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1967).Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. E., Adams, V. M., & Davis, G. (2007). Cognitive demands and second-language learners: a framework for analyzing mathematics instructional contexts. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 3–30.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 531–554.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Education and Employment, U.K. (1998). The implementation of the national numeracy strategy: The final report of the numeracy taskforce. London: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Diezmann, C. M., & Lowrie, T. (2009a). An instrument for assessing primary students’ knowledge of information graphics in mathematics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diezmann, C. M., & Lowrie, T. (2009b). The role of fluency in a mathematics item with an embedded graphic: interpreting a pie chart. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(5), 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., & Demetriou, A. (2007). The effects of different modes of representation on the solution of one-step additive problems. Learning and Instruction, 17, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagatsis, A., & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different modes of representation on mathematical problem solving. In M. Johnsen Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2) (pp. 447–454). Bergen: Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  16. Gattis, M. (2002). Structure mapping in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Development, 17, 1157–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldin, G. A. (2008). Perspectives on representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 176–201). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hittleman, D. R. (1985). A picture is worth a thousand words…if you know the words. Childhood Education, 61–62, 32–36.Google Scholar
  19. Janvier, C., Girardon, C., & Morand, J. (1993). Mathematical symbols and representations. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 79–102). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Kettler, R. J., Elliott, S. N., & Beddow, P. A. (2009). Modifying achievement test items: a theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kosslyn, S. M. (1983). Ghosts in the mind’s machine: Creating and using images in the brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  25. Logan, T., & Greenlees, J. (2008). Standardised assessment in mathematics: The tale of two items. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions. Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol 2) (pp. 655–658). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  26. Lowrie, T. (2009). Blind faith? The mathematics of decision making within the professions. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 121–134). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2005). Fourth-grade students’ performance on graphical languages in mathematics. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3) (pp. 265–272). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
  28. Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2007). Solving graphics problems: student performance in the junior grade. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2009). National numeracy tests: a graphic tells a thousand words. Australian Journal of Education, 53(2), 141–158.Google Scholar
  30. Lowrie, T., Diezmann, C. M., & Logan, T. (2011, September 21). Understanding graphicacy: students’ sense making on mathematics assessment items. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
  31. Mackinlay, J. (1999). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, & B. Schneiderman (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think (pp. 66–81). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  32. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy: Year 3 numeracy test. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualization in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79–112). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options