Advertisement

High School Students Interpreting Tables and Graphs: Implications for Research

  • S. V. Sharma
Article

Abstract

Concerns about students’ difficulties in statistical reasoning led to a study which explored form five (14- to 16-year-olds) students’ ideas in this area. The study focussed on descriptive statistics, graphical representations, and probability. This paper presents and discusses the ways in which students made sense of information in graphical representations (tables and bar graph) obtained from the individual interviews. The findings revealed that many of the students used strategies based on prior experiences (everyday and school) and intuitive strategies. From the analysis, I identified a four-category rubric for classifying students’ responses. While the results of the study confirm a number of findings of other researchers, the findings go beyond those discussed in the literature. While students could read and compare data presented in a bar graph, they were less competent at reading tables. This could be due to instructional neglect of these concepts or linguistic and contextual problems. The paper concludes by suggesting some implications for researchers.

Key Words

beliefs experiences high school students interpretation of tables and graphs interviews statistical thinking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asp, G., Dowsey, J. & Hollingsworth, H. (1994). Students’ understanding of pictographs and bar graphs. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson & J. Geake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia: Challenges in Mathematics Education: Constraints on Construction, 5-8 July (pp. 57–65). Lismore: The Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Canberra: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Biehler, R. (1997). Students’ difficulties in practicing computer-supported data analysis: Some hypothetical generalisations from results of two exploratory studies. In J. Garfield & G. Burrill (Eds.), Research on the role of technology in teaching and learning statistics (pp. 169–190). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bright, G.W. & Friel, S.N. (1998). Graphical representations: Helping students interpret data. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in grades K-12 (pp. 63–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Chick, H. (2000). Young adults making sense of data. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Mathematics Education Beyond 2000, 5–9 July (pp. 157–171). Sydney: MERGA INC.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. (2002). Modeling, symbolizing, and tool use in statistical data analysis. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B.V. Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 171–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, B. & Dunne, M. (1999). Assessing children’s mathematical ability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Curcio, F.R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curcio, F.R. & Artzt, A.F. (1997). Assessing students’ statistical problem solving behaviours in a small group setting. In I. Gal & J.B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 123–138). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dapueto, C. & Parenti, L. (1999). Contributions and obstacles of contexts in the development of mathematical knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 1-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Estepa, A., Bataneo, C. & Sanchez, F.T. (1999). Students’ intuitive strategies in judging association when comparing two samples. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 7, 17–30.Google Scholar
  13. Fijian Ministry of Education, Women, Culture, Science and Technology. (1994). Primary mathematics prescriptions. Suva: Curriculum Development Unit 1994.Google Scholar
  14. Friel, S.N., Bright, G.W., Frieerson, D. & Kader, G.D. (1997). A framework for assessing knowledge and learning in statistics (K-8). In I. Gal & J.B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  15. Friel, S.N., Curcio, F.R. & Bright, G.W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional applications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.Google Scholar
  16. Gal, I. (1998). Assessing statistical knowledge as it relates to students’ interpretation of data. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in grades K-12 (pp. 275–295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Gal, I. (2002). Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70(1), 1-24.Google Scholar
  18. Gal, I. & Garfield, J. (1997). Assessing statistical knowledge as it relates to students’ interpretation of data. In I. Gal & J.B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holmes, P. (1994). Teaching statistics at school level in some European countries. In L. Brunelli & G. Cicchutelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Scientific Meeting (pp. 3–11). University of Perugia, 23–24 August 1993.Google Scholar
  20. Janvier, C. (1981). Use of situations in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lave, J. (1991). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lajioe, S.P. & Romberg, T.A. (1998). Identifying an agenda for statistics instruction and assessment in K-12. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in grades K-12. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Metz, K.E. (1997). Dimensions in the assessment of students’ understanding and application of chance. In I. Gal & J.B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 223–238). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, M.R., Dekker, T. & Querelle, N. (2001). Context in mathematics curricula. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(9), 522–527.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Moritz, J. (2003). Interpreting a scattergraph displaying counterintuitive covariation. In Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, Networking, Opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 523–530). Geelong: MERGA INC.Google Scholar
  28. Pereira-Mendoza, L. (1995). Graphing in the Primary School: Algorithm versus comprehension. Teaching Statistics, 17(1), 2-6.Google Scholar
  29. Pereira-Mendoza, L. & Mellor, J. (1991). Students’ concepts of bar graphs-Some preliminary findings. In D. Vere-Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Vol. 1. School and General Issues (pp. 150–157). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Pfannkuch & Rubick. (2002). An exploration of students’ statistical thinking with given data. Statistics Education Research Journal, 1(2), 4–21.Google Scholar
  31. Roth, W. (2004). What is the meaning of “meaning”? A case study from graphing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W. & Bowen, G.M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159–194.Google Scholar
  33. Scheaffer, R.L. (2000). Statistics for a new century. In M.J. Burke & F.R. Curcio (Eds.), Elearning mathematics for a new century 2000 yearbook (pp. 158–173). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. Shaughnessy, J.M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Shaughnessy, J.M. & Zawojewski, J.S. (1999). Secondary students’ performance on data and chance in the 1996 NAEP. The Mathematics Teacher, 92(8), 713–718.Google Scholar
  36. Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R. & Mousley, J. (2002). Contexts in mathematics teaching: Snakes or ladders? In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M. Pfannncuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Auckland. (pp. 649–656).Google Scholar
  37. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 24–38). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Watson, J.M. (2001). Statistics in context. The Mathematics Teacher, 47(1), 54–58.Google Scholar
  40. Watson, J.M. (2001). Longitudinal development of inferential reasoning by school students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 337–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson, J.M. & Callingham, R. (2003). Statistical literacy: A complex hierarchical construct. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 3–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. V. Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations