Advertisement

Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 179–202 | Cite as

‘Walking a Graph’: Developing Graph Sense Using Motion Sensor Technology

  • Øistein GjøvikEmail author
  • Svein Arne Sikko
Article

Abstract

The teaching and learning of functions has generally been considered a problematic area of school mathematics. Also, in Norway, functions have been identified as a difficult topic for many students. In this article, we address some of the difficulties that may arise when introducing the concept of time–distance graphs and discuss misconceptions that can be avoided with our approach. We report on a case study undertaken within the international project FaSMEd (Formative assessment in Science and Mathematics Education). Two groups of grade 6 students were introduced to time-distance graphs for the first time. This happened at an earlier stage than normally dictated by the national curriculum. We show how students indicated they were learning mathematics and developing graph sense through a couple of tasks utilizing motion-sensor technology. We will see how students express connections with translating movement into language about graphs and how they translate graphs into physical movement.

Keywords

Functions Graphs Graph sense Motion technology Representations Q-sorting Affect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the roles of Jardar Cyvin, Maria Febri and Ragnhild Lyngved Staberg in the planning and the data collection in the project. We would also like to thank teacher Einar and his students.

We acknowledge the important part played by the reviewers and, in particular, the editor Nathalie Sinclair, in making this article much better than the one originally submitted.

The FaSMEd project received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 612337.

References

  1. Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42–47.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2004). Approaching functions through motion experiments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(3), 305–308.Google Scholar
  3. Arzarello, F., Pezzi, G., & Robutti, O. (2007). Modelling body motion: An approach to functions using measuring instruments. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 129–136). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, R. (1997). Does data-logging change the nature of children’s thinking in experimental work in science? In B. Somekh & N. Davis (Eds.), Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning: Studies in pre-service and in-service teacher education (pp. 63–72). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bergem, O., Kaarstein, H., & Nilsen, T. (Eds.). (2016). Vi kan lykkes i realfag. Resultater og analyser fra TIMSS 2015. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  6. Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the quantitative and qualitative gap between expectation and implementation: A survey of English mathematics teachers’ uses of ICT. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective on technology-focused professional development (pp. 43–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2014). Summary and suggested uses for the book. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective on technology-focused professional development (pp. 395–401). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeMarois, P. & Tall, D. (1999). Function: Organizing principle or cognitive root? In O. Zaslavzky (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-third conference of the IGPME (vol. 2, pp. 257–264). Haifa, Israel: Israel Institute of Technology/PME.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1982). Intuitive functional concepts: A baseline study on intuitions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(5), 360–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Eicholz, R., Martin, E., Brumfield, C., & Shanks, M. (1963). Elementary school mathematics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. FaSMEd (2018). Raising Achievement through Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education. (https://microsites.ncl.ac.uk/fasmedtoolkit/). Accessed 2 May 2019.
  13. Greeno, J. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 170–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grønmo, L., Hole, A., & Onstad, T. (2016). Ett skritt fram og ett tilbake: TIMSS Advanced 2015. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadjidemetriou, C., & Williams, J. (2002). Children’s graphical conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh conference of the IGPME (vol. 1, pp. 105–109). Honolulu: HI: College of Education, University of Hawaii/PME.Google Scholar
  18. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newton, L. (2000). Data-logging in practical science: Research and reality. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1247–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gestures in interpreting graphs. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–125.Google Scholar
  21. Robutti, O. (2009). Space–time representations in young children: Thinking through gestures in motion experiments. In C. Andersen, N. Scheuer, M. Pérez Echeverría & E. Teubal (Eds), Representational systems and practices as learning tools (pp. 59–75). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sajka, M. (2003). A secondary school student's understanding of the concept of function: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(3), 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of functions). In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 25–58). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  25. Sinclair, N., & Armstrong, A. (2011). Tell a piecewise story. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(6), 346–353.Google Scholar
  26. Tan, K., Hedberg, J., Koh, T., & Seah, W. (2006). Data-logging in Singapore schools: Supporting effective implementations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations