Advertisement

The construction fo meanings for trend in active graphing

  • Janet Ainley
  • Elena Nardi
  • Dave Pratt
Article

Abstract

The development of increased and accessible computing power has been a major agent in the current emphasis placed upon the presentation of data in graphical form as a means of informing or persuading. However research in Science and Mathematics Education has shown that skills in the interpretation and production of graphs are relatively difficult for Secondary school pupils. Exploratory studies have suggested that the use of spreadsheets might have the potential to change fundamentally how children learn graphing skills. We describe research using a pedagogic strategy developed during this exploratory work, which we call Active Graphing, in which access to spread sheets allows graphs to be used as analytic tools within practical experiments. Through a study of pairs of 8 and 9 year old pupils working on such tasks, we have been able to identify aspects of their interaction with the experiment itself, the data collected and the graphs, and so trace the emergence of meanings for trend.

data handling graphing trend spreadsheets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ainley, J. (1995). Re-viewing Graphing: traditional and intuitive approaches. For the Learning of Mathematics 15(2): 10-16.Google Scholar
  2. Ainley, J. (1999). Who are you today? Complementary and conflicting roles in schoolbased research, For the Learning of Mathematics 19(1): 39-47.Google Scholar
  3. Ainley, J., Nardi, E. and Pratt, D. (1998a). Graphing as a computer mediated tool. In A. Olivier and K. Newstead (Eds), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology ofMathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 243-258). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  4. Ainley, J., Nardi, E. and Pratt, D. (1998b). Children's interpretation of graphs within a computer-based pedagogy (R000221844). Final Report to ESRC, Mathematics Education Research Centre, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  5. Ainley, J., Nardi, E. and Pratt, D. (1999). Constructing meaning for formal notation in active graphing. In I. Scwank (Ed), Proceedings of the First Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 1. Osnabrueck: Forschungsinstitut fuer Mathematikdidaktik, http://www.fmd.uni-osnabrueck.de/ebooks/erme/cerme1-proceedings/cerme1_contents1.htmlGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Zvi, D. and Friedlander, A. (1996). Statistical thinking in a technological environment. In J. B. Garfield and G. Burrill (Eds), Research in the Role of Technology in Teaching and Learning Statistics: Proceedings of the 1996 International Association for Statistical Education Round Table Conference (pp. 45-55). University of Granada: International Statistics Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24: 385-395.Google Scholar
  8. Bryant, P. E. and Somerville, S. C. (1986). The spatial demands of graphs. British Journal of Psychology 77: 187-196.Google Scholar
  9. Carraher, D., Schliemann, A. and Nemirovsky, R. (1995). Graphing from everyday experience. Hands On! 18(2): 7.Google Scholar
  10. Donnelly, J. F. and Welford, A. G. (1989). Assessing pupils' ability to generalise. International Journal of Science Education 11(2): 161-171.Google Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, T. and Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb and T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 27-36). Oaxtepex: PME.Google Scholar
  12. Goldenberg, E. P. (1987). Believing is seeing: How preconceptions influence the perception of graphs. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics and C. Kieran (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 197-203). Montreal: Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, S. and Welford, A. G. (1988). Using graphical and symbolic representation. In F. Archenhold (Ed), Science at Age 15: A Review of Assessment of Performance Unit Survey Findings 1980-1984. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  14. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 120-136). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  15. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. C. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(2): 121-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mokross, J. R. and Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer based laboratories on children's abilities to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24: 369-383.Google Scholar
  18. Nachmias, R. and Linn, M. C. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24: 491-506.Google Scholar
  19. Nemirovsky, R. (1998). Symbol-use, fusion and logical necessity: On the significance of children's graphing. In A. Olivier and K. Newstead (Eds), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 259-263). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  20. Nemirovsky, R. and Noble, T. (1997). On mathematical visualisation and the place where we live. Educational Studies in Mathematics 33: 99-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nemirovsky, R. and Rubin, A. (1991). “It makes sense if you think about how the graphs work. but in reality...”. In F. Furunghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 57-64). Assisi: University of Assisi.Google Scholar
  22. Noble, T. and Nemirovsky, R. (1995) Graphs that go backwards. In L. Meira and D. Carraher (Eds), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 256-263). Recife: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.Google Scholar
  23. Padilla, M. J., McKenzie, D. L. and Shaw, E. L. (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics 86: 20-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers For Mathematical Learning 1(1): 95-123.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, R. J. (1997). Can juniors read graphs? Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education 6(1): 49-58.Google Scholar
  26. Pratt, D. (1994). Active graphing in a computer-rich environment. In J. P. Da Ponte and J. F. Matos (Eds), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 57-64). Lisbon: University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  27. Pratt, D. (1995). Young children's active and passive graphing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 11: 157-169.Google Scholar
  28. Sharma, S. (1993). Graphs: Children's Strategies and Errors. London: King's College.Google Scholar
  29. Shuard, H., Walsh, A., Goodwin, J. and Worcester, V. (1991). Calculators, Children and Mathematics. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  30. Swatton, P. and Taylor, R. M. (1994). Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. British Educational Research Journal 20: 227-243.Google Scholar
  31. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7: 42-57. Mathematics Education Research Centre Institute of Education University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Ainley
    • 1
  • Elena Nardi
    • 1
  • Dave Pratt
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematics Education Research Centre, Institute of EducationUniversity of WarwickCoventryU.K.

Personalised recommendations