Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 369–394 | Cite as

Children’s schemes for anticipating the validity of nets for solids

  • Vince Wright
  • Ken Smith
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is growing acknowledgement of the importance of spatial abilities to student achievement across a broad range of domains and disciplines. Nets are one way to connect three-dimensional shapes and their two-dimensional representations and are a common focus of geometry curricula. Thirty-four students at year 6 (upper primary school) were interviewed on two occasions about their anticipation of whether or not given nets for the cube- and square-based pyramid would fold to form the target solid. Vergnaud’s (Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 167–181, 1998, Human Development, 52, 83–94, 2009) four characteristics of schemes were used as a theoretical lens to analyse the data. Successful schemes depended on the interaction of operational invariants, such as strategic choice of the base, rules for action, particularly rotation of shapes, and anticipations of composites of polygons in the net forming arrangements of faces in the solid. Inferences were rare. These data suggest that students need teacher support to make inferences, in order to create transferable schemes.

Keywords

Spatial visualisation Geometry Schemes Nets 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alibali, M. (2005). Gesturing in spatial cognition: expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(4), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alibali, M., & Nathan, M. J. (2011). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 247–286. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.611446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2013). National Assessment Programme. Retrieved 24 August, 2013 from http://www.nap.edu.au/.
  4. Author (2016). Visualisation and analytic strategies for anticipating the folding of nets. Paper presented at the opening up Mathematics Education Research, Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  5. Bourgeois, R. D. (1986). Third graders' ability to associate foldout shapes with polyhedra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrysotomou, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Tsingi, C., Cleanthous, E., & Christou, C. (2013). Examining number sense and algebraic reasoning through cognitive styles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, D., Clarke, B., & Roche, A. (2011). Building teachers' expertise in understanding, assessing and developing children's mathematical thinking: the power of task-based, one-to-one interviews. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(2011), 901–913. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0345-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–590). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, N. (2003). Curved solid nets. Paper presented at the 27th international conference of psychology in mathematics education, Honolulu, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Core Common Curriculum Standards Initiative (2016). Preparing America's students for success. Retrieved 28 November, 2016 from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  11. Despina, A. S., Leikin, R., & Silver, E. A. (1999). Exploring students’ solution strategies in solving a spatial visualization problem involving nets. Paper presented at the 23rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  12. Diezmann, C. M., & Lowrie, T. (2009). Primary students' spatial visualisation and spatial orientation: an evidence base for instruction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education - in Search for theories in mathematics education: PME 33, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  13. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualisation: cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. Paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Cuernavaca, Mexico.Google Scholar
  14. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The importance of gesture in children's spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259–1268. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eraso, M. (2007). Connecting visual and analytic reasoning to improve students’ spatial visualization abilities: a constructivist approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Florida International University, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Ginsburg, H., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children's mathematical thinking: connecting research with practice. In I. E. Siegel & K. A. Rennignger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 5th ed., pp. 23–26). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Goldin, G. A. (1997). Observing mathematical problem solving through task based interviews. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph, 9(1997), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perpective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, E., & Tall, D. (2001). Relationships between embodied objects and symbolic procepts: an explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, J., Newscombe, N. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2013). A new twist on studying the development of dynamic spatial transformations: mental paper folding in young children. Mind, Brain and Education, 7(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. (2007). Raise your hand if you're spatial. Gesture, 7(1), 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, K., & Tzekaki, M. (2016). Research on the teaching and learning of geometry. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 109–149). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: a neglected talent in educational settings. Roeper Review, 35(2013), 219–230. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.829896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight, R. (2012). Enhancing students' spatial visualisation: a design experiment. (Masters of Education Dissertation), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  26. Knight, R., & Author (2014). Will the net work? Development of a diagnostic interview. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education research group of Australasia), (pp. 343–350). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  27. Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object visualisers: a new characterisation of visual cognitive style. Memory and Cognition, 33(4), 710–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawrie, C., & Pegg, J. (2000). 3-Dimensional geometry: assessment of students' responses. Paper presented at the Mathematics and beyond 2000: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education research group of Australasia, Freemantle, WA.Google Scholar
  29. Lowrie, T. (2012). Visual and spatial reasoning: the changing form of mathematics representation and communication. In B. Kaur & T. T. Lam (Eds.), Reasoning, communication and connections in mathematics, yearbook 2012 (pp. 149–168). Singapore: Association of Mathematics Teachers, World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowrie, T., Greenlees, J., & Logan, T. (2012). Assessment beyond all: the changing nature of assessment. In B. Perry (Ed.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008–2011 (pp. 143–165). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  31. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000137349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maher, C. A., & Sigley, R. (2014). Task-based interviews in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 579–582). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Mariotti, M. A. (1989). Mental images: some problems related to the development of solids. Paper presented at the Actes de la 13 conference internationale, Psychology of Mathematics Education, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: the importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Education Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs (Ed.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education, advances in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Dordrect: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Meissner, H. (2001). Encapsulation of a process in geometry. Paper presented at the PME XXV conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. Newcombe, N., & Shipley, T. F. (2012). Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assessments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Newcombe, N. S., Uttal, D. H., & Sauter, M. (2013). Spatial development. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 564–590). New York: Oxford Univerity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Núñez, R. (2008). A fresh look at the foundations of mathematics. In A. Cienki & C. M. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Olive, J., & Steffe, L. P. (2002). Schemes, schemas and director systems. In D. Tall & M. Thomas (Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding in mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 97–130). Flaxton: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  41. Owens, K. (1993). Spatial thinking processes employed by primary school students engaged in mathematical problem solving (PhD). Geelong: Deakin University Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30023339/owens-spatialthinking-1993.pdf.Google Scholar
  42. Owens, K. (2015). Visuospatial reasoning. Geneva: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1985). In T. Brown & K. J. Trampy (Eds.), The equilibration of cognitive structure: the central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child's conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  45. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75, 191–212. doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9251-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2013). Coding and decoding representations of 3D shapes. The Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 32(2013), 673–689. doi: 10.1016/j.mathb.2013.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pitta-Pantazzi, D., & Christou, C. (2010). Spatial versus object visualisation: the case of mathematical understanding in three-dimensional arrays of cubes and nets. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(2010), 102–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulos, V. (1992). Children's representations of the development of solids. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(1), 38–46.Google Scholar
  49. Presmeg, N. (1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46.Google Scholar
  50. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O'Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Richie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science (pp. 219–262). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Rivera, F. D. (2011). Towards a visually-oriented school mathematics curriculum. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silver, C., & Lewins, C. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: a step by step guide. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., de Villiers, M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K. (2016). Recent research on geometry education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 691–719. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steffe, L. P. (2013). Establishing mathematics education as an academic field: a constructive odyssey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tall, D., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of mathematical behaviour, 18(2), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, H. A., & Hutton, A. (2013). Think3d!: training spatial thinking fundamental to STEM education. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 434–455. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.828727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, P. W. (2015). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In L. English & D. Kirschner (Eds.), Third handbook of international reseach on mathematics education (pp. 435–461). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  60. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., Stitzlein, C. A., Saner, L., Schunn, C. D., & Kirschenbaum, S. S. (2006). The relationship between spatial transformations and iconic gestures. Spatial Cognition and Computation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tzur, R., Johnson, H. L., McClintock, E., Kenney, R. H., Xin, Y. P., Si, L., Woordward, J., et al. (2013). Distinguishing schemes and tasks in children's development of multiplicative reasoning. PNA, 7(3), 85–101.Google Scholar
  62. Vergnaud, G. (1994). Multiplicative conceptual field: what and why? In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 41–59). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vergnaud, G. (1998). A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) (2012). AusVELS: mathematics. Retrieved 12 December, 2016 from http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Mathematics/Overview/Mathematics-across-Foundation-to-Level-10.
  66. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1, History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Scheme theory as a key to the learning paradox. In Paper presented at the 15th advanced course. Geneva: Archives Jean Piaget http://www.fractus.uson.mx/Papers/vonGlasersfeld/vg2001esquemas.pdf.Google Scholar
  69. Zazkis, R., Dubinsky, E., & Dautermann, J. (1996). Coordinating visual and analytic strategies: a study of students' understanding of the group D4. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.nzmaths.co.nzTaupoNew Zealand
  2. 2.Australian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options