Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 851–864 | Cite as

Ferris wheels and filling bottles: a case of a student’s transfer of covariational reasoning across tasks with different backgrounds and features

  • Heather Lynn Johnson
  • Evan McClintock
  • Peter Hornbein
Original Article

Abstract

Using an actor-oriented perspective on transfer, we report a case of a student’s transfer of covariational reasoning across tasks involving different backgrounds and features. In this study, we investigated the research question: How might a student’s covariational reasoning on Ferris wheel tasks, involving attributes of distance, width, and height, influence a student’s covariational reasoning on filling bottle tasks, involving attributes of volume and height? The student transferred covariational reasoning that she employed on Ferris wheel tasks to filling bottle tasks; yet, her covariational reasoning on filling bottle tasks was less advanced. When designing a sequence of tasks intended to engender students’ covariational reasoning, we recommend that researchers begin by using situations consisting of “simpler” attributes, such as height and distance, which students may more readily conceive of as being possible to measure. By taking into account students’ conceptions of task features, researchers can promote transfer of complex forms of mathematical reasoning, such as covariational reasoning.

Keywords

Variational Reasoning Individual Quantity Ninth Grade Student Smooth Image Covariational Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a Faculty Development Grant from the University of Colorado Denver. Opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors. We thank Patrick Thompson and Reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Carlson, M. P., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castillo-Garsow, C. (2012). Continuous quantitative reasoning. In R. Mayes & L. L. Hatfield (Eds.), Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling: A driver for STEM integrated education and teaching in context (Vol. 2, pp. 55–73). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming College of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Castillo-Garsow, C., Johnson, H. L., & Moore, K. C. (2013). Chunky and smooth images of change. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(3), 31–37.Google Scholar
  4. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis, A. B., Özgür, Z., Kulow, T., Dogan, M. F., & Amidon, J. (2016). An exponential growth learning trajectory: Students’ emerging understanding of exponential growth through covariation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(3), 151–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, A. B., Özgür, Z., Kulow, T., Williams, C., & Amidon, J. (2015). Quantifying exponential growth: Three conceptual shifts in coordinating multiplicative and additive growth. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, H. L. (2012). Reasoning about variation in the intensity of change in covarying quantities involved in rate of change. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, H. L. (2013). Designing covariation tasks to support students reasoning about quantities involved in rate of change. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (Vol. 1, pp. 213–222). Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, H. L. (2014). A role of context in constructivist model building: What problem is the learner solving? Constructivist Foundations, 9(3), 339–341.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, H. L. (2015a). Secondary students’ quantification of ratio and rate: A framework for reasoning about change in covarying quantities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(1), 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, H. L. (2015b). Task design: Fostering secondary students’ shifts from variational to covariational reasoning. In K. Beswick, T. Muir & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 129–136). Hobart, Tasmania: University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
  12. Kaput, J. J., & Roschelle, J. (1999). The mathematics of change and variation from a millenial perspective: New content, new context. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum (pp. 155–170). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lobato, J. (2008). When students don’t apply the knowledge that you think they have, rethink your assumptions about transfer. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 289–304). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, K. C. (2014). Quantitative reasoning and the sine function: The case of Zac. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 102–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2012). Students’ images of problem contexts when solving applied problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore, K. C., Paoletti, T., & Musgrave, S. (2013). Covariational reasoning and invariance among coordinate systems. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, K. C., Silverman, J., Paoletti, T., & LaForest, K. (2014). Breaking conventions to support quantitative reasoning. Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ function understanding. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. W. (1998). Re-thinking covariation from a quantitative perspective: Simultaneous continuous variation. In S. B. Berenson, K. R. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. N. Coloumbe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood & L. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education North American Chapter (Vol. 1, pp. 298–303). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  23. Shell Centre for Mathematical Education (University of Nottingham). (1985). The language of functions and graphs: An examination module for secondary schools. Nottingham, UK: JMB/Shell Centre for Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  24. Sierpinska, A. (2004). Research in mathematics education through a keyhole: Task problematization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(2), 7–15.Google Scholar
  25. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Stalvey, H. E., & Vidakovic, D. (2015). Students’ reasoning about relationships between variables in a real-world problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, P. W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181–234). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling, and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In S. A. Chamberlain & L. L. Hatfield (Eds.), New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education: Papers from a planning conference for wisdom^e (Vol. 1, pp. 33–56). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming College of Education.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. P. (2017). Variation, covariation and functions: Foundational ways of mathematical thinking. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421–456). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, A. (2016). Parameters for practice and research in task design in mathematics education. Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  33. Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations