Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data representation and interpretation by primary school students working in groups

  • Articles
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twenty-seven Grade 5/6 students working in triads considered a supplied data set. They were asked to hypothesise about associations in the data and to represent these. Each student was classified according to the level of interpreting the information, the level of representing the chosen data, and the type of collaboration observed in the group. Levels of interpretation and representation skills were related and there was some indication of a possible association with the type of collaboration. There was no association of type of collaboration and students’ views on group work. Implications for future research and the classroom are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups.Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Education Council. (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne:Curriculum Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Education Council. (1994).Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne:Curriculum Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY:Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.),Intelligence: Reconceptualisation and measurement (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chick, H. L., & Watson, J. M. (1998). Showing and telling: Primary students’ outcomes in data representation and interpretation. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.),Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 153–160). Brisbane:MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 211–230). New York, NY:Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, T. L., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathematics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–196). New York:Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, A. (1994). Recognition of effective group discussion. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.),Challenges in mathematics education: Constraints on construction (Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 295–305). Lismore, NSW:MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperative learning in mathematics education. In P. R. Trafton (Ed.),New directions for elementary school mathematics (pp. 234–245). Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., Jacobs, V. R., & Lavigne, N. C. (1995). Empowering students in the use of statistics.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Lavigne, N. C. (1994). How does group composition and gender influence the learning of statistics? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association in New Orleans, LA..

  • Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children’s data modelling.Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidster, S. T., Chick, H. L., & Watson, J. M. (1997). Developing cognition in interpreting data. In N. Scott & H. Hollingsworth (Eds.)Mathematics: Creating the future (Proceedings of the 16th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, pp. 202–209). Adelaide:AAMT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1996).Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (1992).Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ:Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 639–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995a). Giving and receiving explanations in cooperative learning groups.Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995b). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes.Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. J., & Corwin, R. B. (1989).Statistics: The shape of the data. Grades 4–6. Palo Alto, CA:Dale Seymour.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1989–1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy.Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.),Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups: Are two heads better than one?Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 261–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M., & Callingham, R. A. (1997). Data cards: An introduction to higher order processes in data handling.Teaching Statistics, 19,12–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M., & Chick, H. L. (in press). Factors influencing the outcomes of collaborative mathematical problem solving–An introduction.Mathematical Thinking and Learning.

  • Watson, J. M., Collis, K. F., Callingham, R. A., & Moritz, J. B. (1995). A model for assessing higher order thinking in statistics.Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Mathematics Education, University of Melbource VIC, 3010

    Helen Chick

  2. Department of Early childhood and Primary Education, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-66, 7001, Hobart, TAS

    Jane Watson

Authors
  1. Helen Chick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jane Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chick, H., Watson, J. Data representation and interpretation by primary school students working in groups. Math Ed Res J 13, 91–111 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217101

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217101

Keywords

Search

Navigation