Data representation and interpretation by primary school students working in groups

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 91-111

  Chick, Helen ^a   Watson, Jane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011019121     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03217101     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 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.
2. Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
3. Australian Education Council. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
4. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic Press.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Lajoie, S. P., Jacobs, V. R., & Lavigne, N. C. (1995). Empowering students in the use of statistics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 401-425.
12. 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.
13. Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children's data modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69-108.
14. 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.
15. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Author.
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
19. 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.
20. Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995a). Giving and receiving explanations in cooperative learning groups. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41,103-121.
21. Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995b). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109-117.
22. Russell, S. J., & Corwin, R. B. (1989). Statistics: The shape of the data. Grades 4-6. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour.
23. Slavin, R. E. (1989-1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
24. 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.
25. Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups: Are two heads better than one? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11,261-275.
26. Watson, J. M., & Callingham, R. A. (1997). Data cards: An introduction to higher order processes in data handling. Teaching Statistics, 19, 12-16.
27. Watson, J. M., & Chick, H. L. (in press). Factors influencing the outcomes of collaborative mathematical problem solving--An introduction. Mathematical Thinking and Learning.
28. 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.
29. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389.