Abstract
This paper looks back over a number of exploratory studies which have researched young children's construction of meanings for graphs, produced from data entered in spreadsheets. In this paper we discuss children's use of normalising, an activity in which children ‘correct’ data towards some perceived norm. Through normalising, children construct meanings for trend in data and in graphs. We discuss how particular aspects of the pedagogical setting including task design encourage the use of normalising.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Ainley, J.: 1994, ‘Building on children's intuitions about line graphs’, in J.P. da Ponte and J.F. Matos (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. II pp. 1–8.
Ainley, J.:1995, ‘Re-viewing graphing: Traditional and intuitive approaches’, For the Learning of Mathematics 15(2), 10–16.
Ainley, J.: 1996, ‘Purposeful contexts for formal notation in a spreadsheet environment’, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 15(4), 405–422.
Ainley, J.: 2001, ‘Transparency in graphs and graphing tasks: an iterative design process’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19, 365–384.
Ainley, J. Nardi, E. and Pratt, D.: 2000, ‘The construction of meanings for trend in active graphing’, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 5(2), 85–114.
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, University of Granada: International Statistics Institute, pp. 45–55.
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 Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Vol. I pp. 197–203.
Johnson and Welford, A.G.: 1988, ‘Using graphical and symbolic representation’, in F. Archenhold (ed.), Science at Age 15: A Review of APU Survey Findings 1980–1984, HMSO, London, pp. 35–44.
Kerslake, D.: 1981, ‘Graphs’, in K.M. Hart (ed.), Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11–16, John Murray, London, pp. 120–136.
Lave, J.: 1988, Cognition in Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E.C.: 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, New York.
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.
Nemirovsky, R. and Monk, S.: 2000 ‘“If you look at it the other way...” An exploration into the nature of symbolizing’, in P. Cobb, E. Yackel and K. McClain (eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools and Instructional Design, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
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 Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Assisi, Italy, Vol. III pp. 57–64.
Noble, T. and Nemirovsky, R.: 1995, ‘Graphs that go backwards’, in L. Meira and D. Carraher (eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Vol II pp. 256–263.
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.
Phillips, R.J.: 1997, ‘Can juniors read graphs?’, Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education 6(1), 49–58.
Pratt, D.: 1995a, ‘Passive and active graphing: A study of two learning sequences’, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife Vol. II pp. 210–217.
Pratt, D.: 1995b, ‘Young children's active and passive graphing’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 11, 157–169.
Sharma, S.: 1993, Graphs: Children's Strategies and Errors, King's College, London.
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.
Yerushalmy, M.: 1991, ‘Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software.’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7, 42–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ainley, J., Pratt, D. & Nardi, E. Normalising: Children's activity to construct meanings for trend. Educational Studies in Mathematics 45, 131–146 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013822512833
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013822512833