Student Difficulties with Graphs in Different Contexts
This study investigates university students’ strategies and difficulties with graph interpretation in three different domains: mathematics, physics (kinematics), and contexts other than physics. Eight sets of parallel mathematics, physics, and other context questions were developed and administered to 385 first year students at Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb. In addition, the questions were administered to 417 first year students at the University of Vienna. Besides giving answers to the questions in the test, students were also required to provide explanations and procedures that accompanied their answers so that additional insight in the strategies that were used in different domains could be obtained. Rasch analysis of data was conducted and linear measures for item difficulties were produced. The analysis of item difficulties obtained through Rasch modeling pointed to higher difficulty of items which involved context (either physics or other context) compared to direct mathematical problems on graph. In addition, student explanations were analyzed and categorized. Student strategies of graph interpretation were found to be largely domain specific. In physics, the dominant strategy seems to be the use of formulas, especially among students at the University of Zagreb. This strategy seems to block the use of other, more productive strategies, which students possess and use in other domains. Students are generally better at interpreting graph slope than area under the graph which is difficult for students and needs more attention in physics and mathematics teaching.
KeywordsStudent difficulties Graphs Physics education Different contexts
This research is part of the Lise Meitner Project M1737-G22 “Development of Graph Inventory”.
- Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–36). Oaxtepex: PME.Google Scholar
- Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- Linacre, J. M. (2006). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Available at http://www.winsteps.com
- Linn, M. C., Eylon, B., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29–46). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Michelsen, C. (2005). Expanding the domain – Variables and functions in an interdisciplinary context between mathematics and physics. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International symposium of mathematics and its connections to the arts and sciences (pp. 201–214). Schwäbisch Gmünd: The University of Education.Google Scholar
- Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361.Google Scholar
- Planinic, M., Ivanjek, L., Susac, A., & Milin-Sipus, Z. (2013). Comparison of university students’ understanding of graphs in different contexts. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9, –020103.Google Scholar